CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. 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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
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. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants.
. demographic (age. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash
outcomes was also investigated. externally-focused frustration. 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).
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). personality traits. on average. respectively). some personality constructs. where. hopelessness. and that driver behaviours. However.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. seven fatalities are recorded each day. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. 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. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. 302 and 252. and destination-activity orientation. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence.
as well. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. 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. Results indicated that. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. As hypothesised.
The role of the proximal variable. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. BIT. Among distal variables. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. As reported in previous studies.
2.1.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2. Theories and Models 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.4.2 1.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.4 184.108.40.206 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1.5 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 An Applied Perspective 220.127.116.11.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.4 Risk Theories 18.104.22.168
.3.1 1.1 Concepts.3.3.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.3 1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)
2.2.1 Accident Proneness 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2
2 Hopelessness 2.4
2.1.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 Zero Risk Theory 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.5.1 Locus of Control 2.2.3 Locus of Control 3.3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 Process Models 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.4.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 Statistical Models 2.3 Ethnicity 220.127.116.11 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 18.104.22.168 Experience 2.5 Aggression
78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85
22.214.171.124 Psychological Variables 126.96.36.199.5.2 Demographic Variables: Age.4.5
188.8.131.52 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2 Gender 184.108.40.206.5.2 Driver Characteristics 220.127.116.11.5.3.4 Hopelessness 18.104.22.168 3.1 Age 22.214.171.124 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 Demographic Variables 126.96.36.199.9.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 188.8.131.52.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2.
7.7.1 Study 1A 184.108.40.206.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.1 The Sample 3.5.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.2 Research Instruments 220.127.116.11.6.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis
86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110
18.104.22.168.3.7.4 22.214.171.124 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 126.96.36.199 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 188.8.131.52.7.3
3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 184.108.40.206 Crash Occurrence 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.3 Study 1C 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.5.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 220.127.116.11.7.3.6
3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 18.104.22.168 Study 1B 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.4 Study 2 22.214.171.124.5
3.5.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.2.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.5.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.3.1 Studies 1 and 2 126.96.36.199 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.
6.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 188.8.131.52.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.12.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.3.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1 Description of the Sample 4.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 184.108.40.206.3 Validity Test Results 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Results of Study 2 22.214.171.124.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.5
126.96.36.199.2.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.1 Age.188.8.131.52 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the
112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157
4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.4 4.2
4.1 Results of Study 1 4.3.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6.6
.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.1.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.
4.2 Study 2 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 5.9.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 Goodness of Fit 18.104.22.168.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.6.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.3 Timeframe for Data Collection
179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211
5.4 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 22.214.171.124.1 Generalisability of Findings 126.96.36.199.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.8.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.7
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.7.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 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 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.6.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 188.8.131.52 5.6
.5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.3.5
184.108.40.206 Study 1C 4.
5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 220.127.116.11 Driver Selection.4. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7.1 Theory vs.7.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 18.104.22.168.3 Education 22.214.171.124 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.4 Enforcement
212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF)
LIST OF TABLES
No. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.
.2 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114
2.1 4.5 4.10 4.2
Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.4
115 117 118 119
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.7 4.3 3.6 4.3 3.8
111 121 121 122
4.2 3.1 3.1 2.4 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.13 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Crash Occurrence Frequency.26
138 139 144 145
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.15
Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.22
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.16
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.4.27 4.12 4.29
. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.14 4.21
199 206 207
5.35 4.32 4.38
Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171
4.36 4.30 4.6
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
5.2 5.34 4.39 4.37 4.5
Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 3. 2.3 3.9
2.4 4. Hatakka.4 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.1 2.8
Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.2 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models
Page 36 37 40 42
44 46 47
2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 1996.3 2.7 2.1 4. 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. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.6 2.LIST OF FIGURES
No.3 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.5
Figure Task Cube (from Summala.2 3.2
64 80 81 82 83 146
10 4.4.6 4.9 4.13
.12 4.7 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
4.5 4.8 4.
they were frustrated and angry with each other.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I’m pretty happy with it.PREFACE Accidents occur. only a trimester or two earlier. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. and this thesis is the result. at least not with real tears. My research design needed a serious re-working. Her hands and voice quivered. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. He didn’t want to go. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. I knew the fellow. LISREL couldn’t. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I told her not to worry. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. he’d taken the same course as she.
. externally-focused frustration. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I don’t cry much any more. They were hurrying. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I got back to work on them. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. is a matter of debate … Obviously.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I’m a fairly big guy. I wanted to throw in the towel. lane deviation and all the rest. But. they cut across a lane too quickly.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. And they crashed. She had needed to go on an errand. they are prone to other types of error as well. to the weary traveler. She had been badly injured. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. . I was confused by the results I was getting. they were focused on the errand. He was very popular with other students. and his mental state. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I didn’t recognise her at first. but she’d nagged him. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model.D. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. or wouldn’t. finally. She started crying and couldn’t stop. things were not going well. I hope it makes a contribution. He was driving. How important these factors are. she was riding pillion. The behaviour of the traveller. But sometimes. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I like to watch boxing. I feel like it a bit right now. just every so often. programme.
2004). cognitive (Vaa. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2000. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Iwasaki. such as Malaysia. Mills & Vavrik. for instance. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Ogden. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Consistently over the years. state of mind and physical well-being. Olson. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle.
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin.. 2001). judgement. 2000). policy-makers. road. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. anticipation.g. 2007. 2004). Enns. 2006. Graham.CHAPTER 1
Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2002. commented that. including the
. Verwey. 2007.. Even after decades of study. Mohan & Hyder. This is particularly salient in developing countries.
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Stanton & Pinto. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2000). leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 1996. Theeuwes. Sleet. 1999). 2002). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2001. 2004) have been studied extensively. 11). Furuichi & Kadoma. Trick. Green. Sabey (1999). Peters & Peters.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
(Peden. perceptual (Hong. Scurfield.
1. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. According to Dewar (2002b). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.roadway.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 21).
.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2003). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2004. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. “the literature on personality has a long history. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.112). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. However. locus of control.332 drivers and
15. There was a total of 341. McKenna. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 1983). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.2
Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 2007).351. including the study of a large number of variables. 1989). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. p. 2005). 2002.790. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. A total of 10. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.
2004. Shinar. 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. 2003). Hence. locus of control (Arthur. 1997. 2004. Barrett & Alexander. Cohn. Gal & Syna Desevilya. West & French. 2005). Draskóczy. Parada & Cortes. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Ulleberg.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Elander. 2002. Blasco. 2002b. Gidron. 2003. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Özkan. 1979. Severson. Stewart. Rimmö. Huang. 2007). 2002. Wu & Yen. 2001). Wells-Parker et al. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Gonzalez. 1999. 1994. 1997). 1991. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster.
Historically. 3). integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2000). Lin. 2002. Sumala & Zakowska. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2001. Dewar. 2002) and many others. 2006. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Renner & Anderle. Barjonet & Tortosa. Ball & Rizzon. 2001. 1997). 1997). that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 1993. Lajunen & Summala. 2005. Wells. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 1997). Loo. 2000.
. 2006. aggression
(Parkinson. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Verwey. Schwebel. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Hwang. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Vasconcellos. 2005. 2004). attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa.
A frequent criticism. vehicle. Sümer (2003). with the risk of roadway casualty?
. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Parker. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement.. Noy (1997). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. 2005). leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. 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. 2004). however. personality and demographic) and proximal (i.
1. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. in particular.e. 1997. externally-focused frustration. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i.. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. 1997).Increasingly. Hampson & Morris. for instance. Speeding.e. 1996. in turn.3
The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury.
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.
the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. injuries and deaths. 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. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (e) driver aggression. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age.
The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. (c) driver locus of control. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. 9). This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. p. 2005. By focusing on not only demographic. situated as proximal variables. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event.
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. but also on their interactions. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. (b) driving experience. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. (d) driver hopelessness. gender and ethnicity. “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.
2005. Laapotti. 2000). Some authors have suggested that.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. Rothengatter. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Utzelmann. 2004. 1974).
. 1997). 94). an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 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. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2001. Katila & Peräaho.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. There is a growing sentiment that. Näätänen & Summala. “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.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Hatakka. the plethora of theories available. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. 1993). road safety measures and public policy. The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 2004). 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. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 2004. 1997. in the applied
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.5
Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research
methods are answered fully in chapter 3. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.g. This broader perspective. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.
In doing so. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway..Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e.g. Che Ali. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures.
. in turn. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. 2001). 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. Radin Umar. It is useful. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. To the author’s knowledge. human motivation. 2001).
1. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. which deals with methodology. attitude theory..
Study 2 and Study 3. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. aggression. variables (Sekaran. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
The present research applied an ex post facto research design. 1B and 1C). each entailing data collection from a different sample. or outcome. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. second. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. externally-focused frustration.however. driving (experience. In this case. 2003). hopelessness. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. Black. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. gender. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. cultural background). freeway urgency. The final result. Babin. 2006. p. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. first. Anderson & Tatham. In each successive study. driving experience.
Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. at the conclusion of Study 1C. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. 711). in their capacity to predict outcomes and. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. the effects of
selected demographic (age. In Study 1. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A.
Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Again. in fact. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. over the course of 30. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1.
Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. This
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. verbally administered psychometric instruments.
After the initial model-building had been completed.are most important in predicting. a third model was constructed.
1. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia.to 45-minute trips. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university.
. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. In Study 2. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities.
In Study 3. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.
social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. at least to a certain extent. 1997). 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.
Finally. Katila & Laapotti. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. However. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. Manstead. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. as well. The present research. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. The relationship between the manner
. Baxter & Campbell. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Keskinen. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. 1990). while recognising the distinction. Are the attitudes. 2002. Boyce & Geller. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. Stradling.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
2005). “bullies” and “selfish”. These are thought to have contributed. and as a “major public health problem”
(Subramaniam. 1989). industrialisation and motorisation. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.1 2. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. there were 341. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. Recently.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. inconsiderate and aggressive. 2007). 2005).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1. economic expansion. Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population. “patient”. they indicated “angry”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 2005). or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. Over 6. in aggregate. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. In newspaper reports. 2003). 2007). in order of frequency. 2007). “friendly”. to a rapid increase
. “reckless”. 2006). “impatient”.1
Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”.000
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 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. 2007). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. “peaceful”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.
415 52.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.20 deaths per 10. Mohd Zulkiflee.091 37. Subramaniam & Law.417 47.287 in 2006. 2005). & Wong.253
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.885 35.
In Malaysia. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.012 19. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.425 5.040 2004 6. 2002-2006
Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 Total 279. Generally.287 9.653 2004 326.98 deaths per 10.286 9. from 189.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.200 9. 2005).236 49.218 2005 6.891 8.
Table 2.815 2005 328. 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.425 2003 6.645 54.228 9.741 38.264 2006 341. 2005).000 vehicles (Law.000 vehicles in 2006. This suggests that studies.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. Studies
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. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.552 37.304 in 1994 to 6. 2007).252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. in Malaysia.7111 2003 298. Radin Umar.2). one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.395 2006 6. 2003.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Table 2. Abdul Rahman.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.
56 3.45 30 0.086 9.41 302 1.005 15.63 160 0.593 11.31 3. 2005).309 10. 2003)
Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75
Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.08 2.08 541 2.48 323 1.84 1. Palamara.431 7.110 10.81 1.67 206 0.803 9. 2003).37 337 1. or about 2.29 708 3.29 2.997 14.329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.94 625 3.92 1. 2006).416 6.99 164 0.68 128 0.4 billion to RM5.178 15.91 984 4.418 100 19.05 1.97 1.15 572 2. general insurers paid RM1.81 3.94 2.48 105 0.65 121 0.40 1.049 15.27 458 2.71 543 2.820 13.11 2.47 280 1.81 2.448 17.07 2.16 90 0.180 10.025 9.469 15. 2002.64 135 0.08 1.21 3.921 100 20.08 585 2. 2001.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.953 17.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. and particularly among younger drivers.82 1.389 6. or an average of RM4. It has been reported that.90 159 0.
. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.7 billion. 2001).67 billion. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.23 2.76 22.54 708 3.551 12. Table 2.341 12.06 608 3.15 43 0.023 5. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.49 450 2.26 463 2. in 1999 alone.216 10.378 11.15 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.77 3.50 979 4. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.205 11.034 4.61 99 0.92 2.947 10.620 7.68 3.038 13.05 2.315 17.22 150 0.967 100 19.65 2.85 2.10 3.72 554 2.80 203 0.07 2.94 1.709 8.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.85 147 0.05 2. Morrison & Ryan.
(Bernama. The economic consequences can be estimated. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. 2005). 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. Some seven years later.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
. 1999). There is no way to A popular
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. which is actually a nightmare. Criticisms of road configuration. lane definition. In 1999. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society.
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. 2006). or the pain of the maimed. traffic congestion. What else can we do.Yet. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. if people want to die? (Lim. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge.
as compared with 1. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia.
Generally. is often mentioned as a factor.
how they think.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2007). serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. newspaper columnists. for instance. Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. unlike in other countries. 2007). Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 2001. 1997).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2005). A leading university professor and Director-General of Malaysia’s Institute for Road Safety Research similarly noted that: Malaysian drivers are not good in safety routines. In 2006. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 2006). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Krishnan & Radin Umar. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better
. In a recent newspaper interview. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. Who they are. 2005). though. given greater risks of accident.
Researchers. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature.
(2005) 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.
. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. This is. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. however. Radin Umar. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Mohd Nasir. Chalmers & Langley. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. In a separate study.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. rather than personality factors. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables.1. Law. 2007). Ahmad Hariza. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. injuries and fatalities. perhaps. In none of the studies of the MSP. Bartle & Truman. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities.
For instance. they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities.
In the same study. Law et al. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Ward.2
Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry.
2. causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. Musa. respectively. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. 1996). was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data.
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.122). The very monotony of the road surface. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly.
. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. This. has linked peninsular communities. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. since 1994. 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. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. resulted in a myriad of problems. He argued that. generalising to all driving environments and situations. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. however. 1996). road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p.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.
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. According to Williamson. they are accident prone. 121-122). the factor that made the high speeds possible. 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. 110).
bad road conditions.
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. Christ. Human
factors are far more important than engineering factors.
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. Among
engineering factors. 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. particularly. West and French. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. levels of driving experience and. The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle. but rather
. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 1991). 1993). Among human factors. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). etc. 784). This has included the examination of age and gender.2. Åberg.2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). 1993. personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene.2 2.1
The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. by far. experiential. personality characteristics (Elander. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. 62).
He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 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. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. or at least predict. prior accident experience (Lin et al. unclear. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 2004) and other contextual variables. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. Ranney. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 2005). 2002.by the behaviour of drivers. 377).
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. 2004). as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. weak. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. Lajunen & Summala. 1994). to a large degree. Haddon (1963). 641). motor vehicle crashes has been attributed by af Wahlberg (2003) to three main methodological deficiencies: (a) an absence of reported test-retest reliability of the predictor. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 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. 1997.
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. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1993).
2. 1997a). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. Preston & Harris. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 2003).2. 321).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. there has been an interest in driver personality. 1996. 2002. 2003). driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data.2.
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Nevertheless. 482). 2005). 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2
The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
2. information processing. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.
.2. the lack of replication of many studies.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. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1961. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. Underwood & Milton.
ergonomics. in the field of traffic. 3). Indeed. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 4). 2002). predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. Temes and Hermida (2001) found.2. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. in a Spanish survey. or the psychological support for intervention.)
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. but that complex traffic
. According to Rothengatter (2001). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. 246). psychology.
To wit. or peculiar to. Ochando.654-655. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. anthropology and sociology. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology.2.
2. medicine.” (p.Transportation systems shape the
structure of our
communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined
psychological processes including personality disposition. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. traffic and transportation. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. transportation planning. eoncompassing engineering.
and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. 2000). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. as well. 1158).behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. Johnston. the road infrastructure and other road users. 2002). Garner and Zwi. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. Wilson. 24). both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. 2003. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Hyder & Peden.
In a recent special edition. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. surrounding environments and
. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002)
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. In the broadest sense. 1995. Stanton (2007) noted that. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p.
Ergonomics has made a contribution. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 1997. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the road environment comprises the vehicle. 2007. Peden & Hyder. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 2004. in particular. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. Odero. over the past ten years. the study of cognitive processes.
Neerincx & Schriebers. Walker. error and cognitive modelling. 2001). 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. particularly the notions of mental load. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as:
Increasingly. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents.3.1
Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Stanton & Young. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. 1997.
2.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. “This school of though. 2006.3 2. 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. 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. though. 26). Noy. which
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 2004). Theories and Models In attempting to understand. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. predict and modify road user behaviour.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Jannssen.
which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. p. 1969). Reasons for this are likely several. p. 2000. In traffic psychology. 1985).
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. To a degree. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. often in mathematical form. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. A-18)
Often. each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. Healy. or both. 1995).3. 2005. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. many models have been proposed. but for the purposes of this thesis. or accident-causing behaviours. whether theories should explain everyday driving. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. in traffic psychology. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates.
Any set of systematically interrelated
hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins.
2. this may be due to
. On the other hand.2
Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala..
it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. motives and personalities (Robbins. Rothengatter. 189).3
The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. social. avoid obstacles. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. risk adaptation theories. etc.
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. 2002). and most of the time is not especially influential. 2004. and emotional determinants.the imprecise definition of concepts. … Just because we as
investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal.
. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. feel in control.. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. Instead. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al.
Notwithstanding these difficulties. given the complexity of human behaviour. minimise delay and driving time. perceptions. These may be classified as: theories of individual
2. For over ninety years.3. attitudes. 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. 2005). or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values. enjoy driving. cognitive. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour.
Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. aggression. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. conscientiousness. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking.
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). McRae &Costa. but not occupational accidents.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. aged 16 to 29 years. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 1980) and other safety outcomes. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 1995. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. 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. for instance. anxiety and driving anger. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. 2000). However. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators.
According to Rothengatter (2002). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. neuroticism. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. 1979). 1990). without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk.
The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness.finding. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. occupational and otherwise. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. p. West & French. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. 1993. in certain cases.
In 1917. 1962. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.3. his or her accident proneness. sensori-motor skill. 1920).3.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. “irrespective of environment. 1984).
2. just as one can meaure height. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. personality. during and following the war years.152). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. p. weight and perhaps even intelligence. the average number of accidents. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
. 290). Research by board statisticians. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it.
According to Haight (2004). If each individual has a unique λ-value. found first that the frequency of accidents. but persists today. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. λ. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander.
with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). Scores on the λ dimension. in traffic or when playing
. inadequate or irrelevant. 195). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. Farmer and Chambers (1926. produced a positive. by devising clever tests. 1991.
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. perhaps physiological. 1997). 2004). “Because crashes are so infrequent. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. p. 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. 1929. 2004). in any sample. inappropriate. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. as well. 1956). None of the experiments. 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. made an assumption that. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 422). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. more probably psychological (p. in successive years. 1939) and many others. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. subjects reported significant. 294). The accident-prone concept. but did not take into consideration whether. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 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.out what that value is. at home.
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. noting that. in a Finnish telephone survey. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Johnson (1946).
and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. pp. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. roadway. therefore. So.. 562). “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. Pijl. 1993). 8-9).3. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.3.05. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. 1980.
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. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. Ultimately. Stolk. sports and family settings. The concept itself is ill-defined. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.sports. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Visser. 1998). This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.
2. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.
A driver who enters a
construction zone. substantially. 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.3.
Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 2000). After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. The introduction of
divided highways. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. albeit not crash occurrence.
However. in a study of driving on icy roads.
2. in fact. experience more accidents than others. Elander et al. large earth-moving
. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. For example. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.accident proneness (Chmiel. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. crash barriers. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates..
Summala and Mersalo (1980) demonstrated that drivers using studded tyres increased their speed to a level where the skid margin approached that of drivers using normal tyres.4
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.3.
2.4. That is.
following their review of the literature. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. Wilde (1982.
RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Collectively. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 2005). 1986. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 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. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 2001. 14). observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. Ranney. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. Wilde. McHugh & Pender. When others (Haight. for example. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. Michon. flat. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. according to the theory. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced.
Initially. according to the theory. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. Sagberg. 1997).vehicles and warning flags.
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. Conversely. 1994. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 2008. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. at least until the target risk level was reached. Fosser & Sætermo. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. in turn. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. In two separate studies.” (Fuller. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
. 1988. 1989. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. That is. 2002). a driver motoring along a wide. p.
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. or the nation” (Brown & Noy.” (Vaa. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. Also. 2008. Rothengatter. Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. 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. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. the community. 1977). General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 2002). 53). Corrigan & Coombs.. Evans
. To the contrary. pay sufficient attention to risk.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. 1989. 2002). a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. (p. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. p. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. 1151). it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 2001. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. 1994. 2004).target risk that people are willing to tolerate. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. p. Lichtenstein. however. 223). but they are not defined in psychological terms.
More than any other driving theory. Fischoff. 2004). Slovic. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment..
3. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. for example. 81).
2. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 26). some degree of risk during the performance of this task. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. 92). 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. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. Rather. and
. p. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. In other words. or expecting. At this point. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. In addition. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. after a similar review. 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. Summala.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.4. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 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. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 1987. 2004.
The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 1998. 1996.learn how to respond safety to.
2. Reeder et al. Gregersen. such as time pressure. 2002. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. and specific driver actions. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation.
. for instance. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. A large number of studies show that external motives. Hataaka. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. On the other hand.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 an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. much of which arises from personality. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. 1999). If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. as a result. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Keskinen. Van der Hulst.3. Summala (1996. Meijman & Roghengatter.1). age and social variables.
Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control
Lane keeping etc. at the same time. (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. 15). criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.
Passing and other maneuvers
Figure 2. but that is not
Keskinen et al. for example. seemingly concurrently. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
hierarchy.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 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.MOBILITY NEEDS
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
Decision making Supervisory monitoring
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS
Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. 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.
Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.g.. Most of the time. 2000)
.3.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.
Compensatory action by others
Loss of control
C<D Task Demands (D)
2. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. affective states). 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. 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. high speeds.1). Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 1982. 252).
It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.6.
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 40). Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. 1985. 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. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 126).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. p. Two limitations have been noted. objects. Fishbein & Ajzen. 1985. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.7
2. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. however. Since 1985. people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform 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. generally referring to a positive or negative
. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. for the most part. institutions or issues (Chaplin. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 1991). Generally. time pressure). providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 2004. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. and Keskinen et al. According to the TRA.Fuller’s theory has. p.
2. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date.3. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. emotional state. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen.3.
3. “Even very mundane activities. which can usually be performed (or not
performed) at will. According to the TPB. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. see Figure 2. however (Sharma & Kanekar. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 1985.2). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. To deal with this uncertainty.
behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). p. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 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?”).
2. 2007).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. then.
.” (Azjen.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). 24). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).7.
A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously.e. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2002. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 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. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. when intention is held constant.
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations
Attitude toward the behaviour
Normative beliefs and motivation to comply
Control beliefs and perceived facilitation
Perceived behavioural control
Figure 2. 2003). it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. or sense of self-efficacy. greater perceived control (i. 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. p. 1989) Within the theory. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 253).. Further.
. 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.
while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. 2002). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. Many of these use accident
data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes.1. pedestrians and road environments in a range of
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.2). to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.1
Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Attitude toward speeding. based on data extracted from police record forms.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model. Austin and Carson (2002). roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics.2.In another study. for instance. vehicles. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. 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. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.
2.4 2. but after controlling for distance travelled.4.
R. Nguntra.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).g. the vehicle (V).
2. E and especially H factors. within specific situational contexts. Swaddiwudhipong.4. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4. Richardson & Downe. 1998.. 2000). 1997.4). 1999). however.2
. Law. Koonchote & Tantiratna. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. the road (R) and the environment (E). Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Seow & Lim.locations and settings (e. 1994). Mahasakpan. More recently. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT
Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E)
contrast. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. on the other hand. Therefore. as well. 283). aggression). it may influence crash risk through some other. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. relevant factors are
grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. gender. Personality factors within the
. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. on one hand.. extraversion. age. contribute directly to crash outcomes.g.g.
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.2. Within the generic model..5).
Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes.4. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. substance abuse) that.2. sensation seeking.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. Factors within the distal context include not only road. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.g. speeding. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. more proximal variable.
g. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. risk taking. depression. sensation seeking. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. As such. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. aggression
Figure 2. psychological symptoms.g. cultural driving habits and beliefs
Relatively stable personality
characteristics. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. e. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors.
Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. 2003)
Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking
e. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.
Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable.
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 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.
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 1986). M. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. In Figure 2. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. 2006). 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. 2003). Tix and Barron. called the outcome. Also termed intervening variables. such that path c′ is zero. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.2. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.2.4. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2004). for instance. If. Figure 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.6(i).6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.
. moderating or mediating effects. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.
or testing the moderating effect. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. 1986). variable (see Figure 2. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. 2003).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable)
M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable)
Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
Figure 2. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. the impact of a moderator (path b).
.7): the impact of a predictor. or independent variable (path a). or dependent. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).
choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
2. anxiety. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. Further.
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. he found that. Using structured equation modelling. given wide
.4. In turn. errors). hostility.2. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. psychoticism). more relevant to the model he proposed. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. hostility. verbal aggression. dangerous drinking). while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. and non-professional students who were mostly students.Predictor Variable
c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. anger). they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. However.
2003. McRae &Costa. responsibility. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety). Day. Here. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. Tubré & Tubré. Arthur. broad-mindedness). 1990) to a similar analysis. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. or “Big Five”. sensation seeking). while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. al. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Finally. applied the five factor. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. 2002.
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. In a
subsequent study. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence.. sensation seeking patterns. Bell. agreeableness (helpfulness. conscientiousness (dependability. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). trust). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. Elander et. (1993) and others. personality model (Costa & McRae. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 2005. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Sümer. Greenwood & Yule. as recommended by Elander et al.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. 1920). 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. Edward. 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. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. for high-λ individuals. Watson. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. in most cases. 1998). lapses. 1995. 1993).739). 1919.
sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. material loss. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey.aberrant driving behaviours. optimism. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Bilgic. yielding support for the contextual mediated model.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. hostility.2.
Although no other studies of driving behaviour. Sümer.
In other words. prior to the present one. phobia. In another study. including perceived control. navy. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. anxiety. Berument and Gunes (2005). for instance. Karanci. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. 225). using a similar research design.4.
2. They found that the effect of proximal variables. reported that driver anger. have acted on those recommendations. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. air force and gendarmerie. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. self esteem.
. proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors. Sümer. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression.
Weinstein & Solomon. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations..8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.5.Downe (2007).
knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits
worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures
lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction
locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.5. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. 1995).1. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Campbell & Williams. Odero et al. aggression)
Safe Work Practices
hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour
safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience
Figure 2. 2003). Type A.. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to
. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Retting. Williams & Shabanova. 1997.g..8).1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 2002.5 2. 2007)
Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables
2. Yet. 2003.g.
. 221). 2007). drive while fatigued. tobacco smoking. McDonald (1994) reported
. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. Vassallo et al. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. in many cases. However.
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 2001. Connery & Stiller. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Jehle. Bina. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. follow too closely. 1997b. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 2002a. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. Jonah. this is a reflection of lifestyle. for these difficulties. less emotionally mature. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner.
Harré. overtake dangerously. the contrary appears to be true. Billittier. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. Moscati. Matthews & Moran. The former is less experienced at driving. p. 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. at least in part. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. 2002a.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 1986). The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. In fact. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar.
managing velocity and regulating acceleration. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Stevenson et al.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. In the present study. 2002). 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.
. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. as age decreased. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. and that young drivers. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). 1999. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. it was hypothesised in the present study that. Vissers & Jessurun. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills.
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. Similarly.39). since safe driving among younger
drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. angry or sad (strong negative emotions).
Justification of age-related hypotheses. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. 2007). indirectly. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Ulleberg. (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. on crash and injury occurrence. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information.
men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. for instance. more often at hazardous times (e. 2004. and behaviours predictive of fatalities.1. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Waller. Shope. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. for instance. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. “In all studies and analyses. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. MacGregor. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.failure to use seat-belts. without exception.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Elliott. Tavris.
2. Chipman. as age decreased. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. 129).g. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury.. for instance. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.5. Monárrez-Espino. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). darkness)” (p.g. p.. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. as well. However. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. self-reported injury would also increase. it was also hypothesised that. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. it
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. 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.
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio.4).
While there is much of value in such an approach. worldwide. Ball. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that. This is important. 525526). 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. found that while male drivers. to date. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. for instance. Flyte & Garner.
Lonczak.S. Lenard. Welsh. Woodcock. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. 1997. Brown. (b) females drive increasingly more. which typically took place during evenings and nights. in a sample taken in the U. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
. Dobson. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). reported more traffic citations and injuries. 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.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. 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. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. At the same time. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. state of Washington. 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.
McKenna. 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. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. evaluated their driving skill lower. as per the traditional pattern. Female drivers. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Laapotti. were less frequently involved in crash situations. In the present study. showing that male drivers were. just as they had in 1978. Turner & McClure.
. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004).
In a subsequent report. Forward.anger. control of traffic situations. In other research. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. et al. 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. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. 11). committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. 2003). gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. and loss-of-control incidents. though.. Lourens et al. 2006. on crash and injury occurrence. alcohol consumption and for risky driving.
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. on the other hand. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. indirectly. (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. In a study of Dutch drivers. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. nonCatholic countries.2. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Harper. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Garrett. lower rates of safety belt use. Lajunen. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Haliburton. 2005). Goldweig and Warren. To a large degree. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy.S. 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.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. But. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities.5. Summala and Hartley (1998). finding that the former group had higher fatality rates.1. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. for instance. Levine. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
. Schlundt. In one of the few studies reported. On the other hand. Marine. differences in fatalities persisted. Corry. Romano.
2005). piety. hierarchical. filial piety. cooperation. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. shame-driven.. Family centeredness. 1999). polite behaviour. cultural differences can be more subtle. In the present study. on crash and injury occurrence. Conscious of what other people say about us. Strong relationship orientation. Education. Roman et al. indirectly.. respect for knowledge. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. religion. Karma. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
. courtesy. prosperity. 2000. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2.2). While religious affiliation. family ties. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Indirect communication. respect for elders. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future.
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. family honour. Fatalistic. prosperity and integrity. However. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. respect for elders. Spirituality. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. They concluded that there were. peace. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Strong relationship orientation. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. 1999).have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. hard work.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses.
Differences have not always been consistent. humility. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations
Man’s relationship with God. respect for elders. in fact.
Table 2. brotherhood/sisterhood. harmony with nature. face saving.
the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Allied to this. Laapotti. passenger distractions different vehicles. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 2001).
On the other hand.g. 1995. as drivers become more experienced. Keskinen. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.behaviour in traffic.
Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
cultural groups.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman.
A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended
although not always. 166). with different weather conditions. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe.2. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. increased experience usually.. 1971). they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. in a given road and traffic scenario. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.5. A large number of studies have shown that. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.5. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. etc. 2002). directionality of the effect was not predicted.2
2. and as such. Hatakka and Katila.
2. As experience grows. Lajunen & Summala. journey lengths.
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. Internal models contain knowledge of route. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes. as individuals acquire experience. 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.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. environment. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. 2004). 2001).
. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy.by Keskinen. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. Yet.9). but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. Hataaka and Katila (1992). Hatakka. direction and position
Figure 2. social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
Adapting to the demands of the present situation
Controlling speed. 1996. in many studies of age and gender
differences. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. 2000)
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. It assumes that. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. When using those at the top of the hierarchy.
the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Female
novice drivers. was used in this study. Brown & Ghiselli. on the other hand. 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. Ghiselli & Brown. for instance.
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. 1954).g. Peltzer and Renner (2003). showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers..
One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component.Laapotti et al. Mintz. Young novice drivers. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. A simple measure of driving experience. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. 1948. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2004). They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. 1949. and
especially young male drivers. 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. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. 2007).
Elander et al. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1984. 1971). The concept of risk exposure has been
examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. 2001.2. Wilde. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour.. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. it is accepted that the more one travels. Second. and type of route where. technical or legal changes relating to road safety.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. on crash and injury occurrence. 1984). McKenna. Pelz & Schuman. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1991).
2. First. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1986. 282). 1993). Duncan & Brown.5. 1995. Rothengatter. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 2002a). showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
. driving occurs (Dewar. for instance.
Generally. In individual differences research. indirectly. the concept is much less well developed. the miles they drive.
female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. 2007). it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. (1999) have argued that. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Ferguson. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. Bina et al..
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. Lourens et al. Williams & Shabanova. although much research does not (e. Yet. Christie. indirectly.
Odero et al.hours than during the forenoon.
Justification of exposure hypotheses. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (1986). 2003). the driving frequency measure was used as a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variable and the proximal variables of the contextual mediated model. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. without correcting for annual mileage. Mercer (1989) showed that. Cairns. however. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. in countries like the USA.. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. as defined by Elander et al. 2007. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes.g. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.. Teoh & MCartt. Towner and Ward. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. 2007. In the present study. on crash and injury occurrence. 2006. Evans (1991) and others. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. (1993).
she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. she separated the externality dimension into two. 1991. and second. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 2006. Stanley & Burrows. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.5. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. or internals. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people. 1999).5.g.3
2. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 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.2.. Hyman. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Holder & Levi. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.
.3. 1975. Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966.3. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.10).5. 1990).
Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 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. In contrast.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.1 Locus of Control 2. Levenson (1975.1. or externals . 15).
Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.Luckner. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances
Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. 1989. luck.3. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. According to Phares (1976).
Low Internality High
.1. Sinha & Watson. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.5. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.Chance
Low Externality – Powerful Others
Figure 2. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.
1987). 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. On the other hand. 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. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 39).
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour.
Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. In a subsequent study. 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. however. 1999). If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. however. French & Chan. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. 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.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). believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p.
. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. 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. but results have been inconsistent.
In a much earlier study. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. although internality was unrelated to DDB. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 1260). although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. In an important study.
On the other hand. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability.
Arthur et al. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. They found that. 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. cognitive. (p. 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). rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. Gidron. offences. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control.
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. That is.
after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. indicated that. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Noy (1997). chance and fate are taken for granted in life.
2. Japan. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Noting that Chinese culture.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Germany.1. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. is based on the notion that … luck.
Their results. Canada and Japan. India. complexity and unpredictability. as hypothesised. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
. France. and the USA. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. 122).5. (1991). moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Hsieh. Israel.
More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Italy. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. In very early research.3.
a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. This was very true for the locus of control variable. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control.
To the author’s knowledge. At the same time.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males.
In very early research. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Cheung. Chinese and Indian populations.
. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). only Cheung. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. 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. skill and ability. Chinese of Malay extraction. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. 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. all internal characteristics. 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. 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.
First.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Montag & Comrey. 1973). given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Cases usually
. In the present study. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Fox & Klerman. 1991. 2005). Sinha & Watson.
2. Niméus. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3. McMillan. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Finally.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 1975). hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Kovacs and Weissman. Gilbody. 1975. 1987. Beresford & Neilly. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al.5. (2003). 2007). et al. without objective basis. 1997. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén.
Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. indirectly. 1995. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. on crash and injury occurrence. Özkan & Lajunen. 2007. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 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. Ohberg. Weissman.
Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. 1962). locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 1976.. investigated the relationship between hopelessness.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 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. 1997. 1962). Selzer & Payne. Mendel. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. for instance. Prociuk. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. and negatively predicted by extraversion. 1990. In the present study. luck. it was
. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. in fact. 1998. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. 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. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions. on crash and injury occurrence. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. it was suggested that “many persons with self-destructive inclinations may unconsciously attempt to destroy or injure themselves through automobile accidents and that these accidents are rarely perceived as suicidal attempts by either the driver or the public” (Selzer & Payne. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Very early on. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. in a more detailed study. Henderson. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Several authors. 1974). chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. assertiveness and positive emotion. including risky driving. Firestone & Seiden.
and deindividuation. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Deffenbacher. Lynch & Oetting. Wright & Crundall. 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. Filetti. Chapman. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 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. 2002. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. & Darviri. Demakakos. Richards. 2000. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Barton and Malta. 2003. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 2002). 1999. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. Underwood. physiological arousal. Tzamalouka. learned disinhibitory cues. Wells-Parker et al.
. 2000. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Koumaki. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard.. In a largely unrelated study. Malta & Blanchard.
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing.3.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2006). including subjective feelings of stress.5.
2. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Chliaoutaks.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. learned cognitive scripts. Mizell. Bakou.
through the use of self-statements. the display of aggression (p. rather than a cause of.
Schwebel et al. as another. Groeger (2000). lack of control over events. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. Bettencourt. More recently. Houston. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). However. 163). raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Snyder. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. (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. Ellis. 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. Crowson. Talley. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. such as TAPB. 1962). though. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. stress induced by time pressure. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. 1976. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world.
Undén. and specific content. 2000. aggression. Karlberg. Deffenbacher. Miyake. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. McKee. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. James & Nahl.1
Proximal Variables in the Present Research Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes The Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) has been associated with a wide range
of behavioural outcomes and is perhaps the most widely publicised and popularly discussed biotype (Rice. Later still. Carbone.6 2. Sato. 1985). that the total amount. on crash and injury occurrence. Sani. 1999. Petrilli. Bettencourt et al.
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 2002.. 1998. Rice. 1981. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. al. 2006). Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation.
. (2003). Thurman. Elofsson & Krakau. Blumenthal. indirectly. It was also hypothesised. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 2001). 2006.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Lynch. insecurity about status.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Magnavita.
In the present study. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Narda. 1999. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving.
2. competitiveness. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et.6. Frueh & Snyder. Kumashiro & Kume. Williams & Haney. 1999). Kamada. impatience.
West. gender. Karlberg et al. driving style. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. Consoli. category of vehicle. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables.
Nabi. focused on the time urgency component
. Chastang. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). In a correlational study of British drivers. 1989. 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. Chiron.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. age. They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. 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. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). for instance. In none of these studies. Raikkonen. Zzanski & Rosenman. studied police officers in Italy. was driving frequency. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. but not with accident risk. where Type A drivers were 4. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. (1998). Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds.
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. similarly. however. alcohol consumption. socio-professional category. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Nabi et al. 1979) and number of accidents. 1990). it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. however.
then use of the Type A/B
. Of the four BIT
factors. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. 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).
In a subsequent study. 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). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data.6.2
A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB
dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. on the other hand. ethnicity. At the same time. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). 1977). Glass. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.
2.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
continuum. namely “externally-focused frustration”. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. Gender. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Miles and Johnson (2003). all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness.
At the present time. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. 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. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. 13). in studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. on the other hand. aggression and the amount and content of
. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. ethnicity.
They argued that it would be preferable. though. In the present study. hopelessness. including gender. that are measured by the BIT scale. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. locus of control. driving experience.
In neither of their studies. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. although ethnicity. Similarly.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. Specifically. To the author’s knowledge. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that.
hostile automatic thought. 2003.
. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 2005. 1986. 1985).. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. externally-focused frustration.. Miles & Johnson. 1993) and. Further. West et al. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence.
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. 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.1
Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. each study explored the extent to which demographic.
.2). the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers
In Study 1.3). with the addition of a third psychological variable. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. aggression (see Figure 3. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable.1). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. In Study 1C. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. In Study 1B. the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. 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. 1B and 1C. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
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
For the purposes of the present research.4
Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies.2. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.2. 25). In the present research. Lester and Trexler (1974). externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained.
3. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. but not chance. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. a thought process that expects nothing. affective. Weissman. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 1994). overlapping and ambiguous. cognitive.
3. 1999). For each of the five studies undertaken. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger. a separate score for internality (I). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.5
Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).
The effects of participants’ total aggression. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. 2003.6
Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). through fighting.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. Specifically. were also investigated. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control.2. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 2005). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. 1957. social alienation and paranoia. Deffenbacher. The present
research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. frustration. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Vallières. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
. hitting or interpersonal violence. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing.
3. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. expressed through the presence of irritability. Lynch & Morris. Bergeron & Vallerand. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Oetting. 1996). In the present research. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. and.
A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. not allowing others to merge or overtake. competitiveness.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. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP).
3. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.2. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. the BIT score. and.. hit or kill another individual.g. characterised by excessive impatience. 1998). frequent lane changing.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. (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.
Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile
drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. and. In the resulting measure of this variable. travel frequency. In the resulting measure of this variable. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
3.2. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.3.9
Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported 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.1
Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.them (e. to the extent of inattention conditions. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.. Then.g.
3.3 3. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving experience.
while driving. in Study 1A. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.
. (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. Then.
hopelessness. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.
3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. travel frequency. travel frequency. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.
3. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. three demographic variables (driver age. Figure 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined.2
Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency. Finally. Then. Finally. In this study. In this study. (b) the moderating effect of locus
. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the influence of driving characteristics. the influence of driving characteristics. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. 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. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then.3
Study 1C In Study 1C.3. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Figure 3.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. In Study 1B. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age.
or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.4
Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Then. Figure 3. First. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.
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. This was justified for three reasons. Figure 3. Finally. Finally. Then. In Study 3. the influence of
experience. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 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.3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.
3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.
. and (b) taxi experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.
3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Figure 3.5
Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience.
the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
Table 3.3:Externally-focused frustration 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. Second.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score
.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H126.96.36.199: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic
H2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. Third.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1.
3.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1.2.
3.2.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.2.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.Table 3.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control
H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H188.8.131.52: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others
Y Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.2.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.
3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. Participants from the first round of data collection were
included in Study 1A.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
Y Y Y
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation
3.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the
. 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. within a 14-month period.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.5 3.
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.5. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. using the same procedures as in Study 1.3: 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. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.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: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.
In all cases. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.2. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Stokols.5. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. 1978). by postal mail.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. For inclusion in the study.
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Stokals & Campbell. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. while participants were driving.g.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).time when they travelled. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.5.2
3. during a point to point trip. Novaco. in the case of Study 3 participants.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. I try to urge its driver to move
.. 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.
Table 3. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. On each form.”
II. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Usurpation of right-ofway
No. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Freeway urgency
III.2. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. to school or to an appointment with someone. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. Destination-activity orientation
.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.
In a later study. Externally-focused frustration
IV.80. as indicated in table 3.” “On a clear highway. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. with a coefficient alpha of .91) were found to be internally consistent.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor
I. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated . of items
“When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.
3. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). it’s usually because I worked hard for it”.
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.5. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.
.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. References to the faster. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives.2. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.
5. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. anger. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.3). 1974).” “When someone really irritates me.” “I get into fights more than most people. Table 3.”
. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. if endorsed.” “When people annoy me.2. 1982.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. verbal aggression. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 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”.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. I may mess up someone’s work.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. 1993.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. and five subscales measure physical aggression. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Of the 20 true-false statements.” “If I’m angry enough.3.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. I may tell them what I think of them.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Beck et al. 1996). if not. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. or 0. Durham.5.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 2005.2.
3. Tanaka et al.
Boyd. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. gender.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 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. with coefficient alpha values of . Shapiro. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.4).”
3.2.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.
3.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .92. Snyder et al. 1996).
Table 3. . derogation of others and revenge respectively.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Three factors – physical aggression.2.88 and . Cascardi & Pythress. 1997.5.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor
Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total
No. 1997. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.” “I want to get back at this person. Williams. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. 2000). age.71 to .5.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. of Items
11 10 9 30
“If I could get away with it. 5 = “all the time”).
.91 for physical aggression.
AQ and HAT. upon request. BHS.
In studies 1 and 2. BIT scale and AQ.
After the briefing period. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. Levenson. BHS. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. in random order. Study 1B: PIF. Levenson. between the two forms of the BIT. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. BIT scale. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. Levenson and BIT scale. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. BHS.
. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale.3. Study 1C: PIF. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”.6 3.1
Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods.6. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. with an e-mail summary of results.
BIT. aged 22 to 24 years. four female final-year undergraduate students. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. The PIF was always administered first. Over the course of the trip. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. For safety reasons. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. At initial contact.7
Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.0. 2004).
3. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Levenson Locus of Control scale. Data collection took place in taxicabs. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 13.
Independent-sample t-tests. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.5.6.2
Study 3 For study 3.
analyses of variance (ANOVA). research assistants verbally administered the PIF.
. as well. 2002).5.
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. 8. rel. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. AQ and Levenson scales. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.3.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. rel. Two to four times daily. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS.
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 H3.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.Table 3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness
H6.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control
H4.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT
H3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement
H1.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT
H2.3: Age influence the Locus of Control
Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness
H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.
4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis:
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT
GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation
H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the higher the BIT level H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression
H10. the lower the BIT level H8.3: Age influences the level of Aggression
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT
H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
.1: The higher the Internality.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT
H8.3: 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. 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).Table 3.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.
2000). ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.
3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. hopelessness.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT
H14. hopelessness. In the present
study.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1
Independent-sample t-tests Generally. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. locus of control.2
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.
When significant differences were observed.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
.Table 3. In the present
research. locus of control.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
first P scores were entered into the regression equation.
3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). In the present research. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.3. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. hopelessness.4
Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and. if so. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7.3
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. In the present research. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.7. Also.7. In the present research. hopelessness. second.
3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). For instance.
Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables.
Goodness-of-fit indicates how
. That is. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. logistic regression.7. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. In the present research.3. In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. 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. 3. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. SEM was carried out.7.
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. on the other hand. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. 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). each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. using LISREL.7 Structural Equation Modelling. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.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. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. 710). “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.
Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. 1998).well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. 745). 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. p. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. (Hair et al. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. According to Marsh et al.. Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI). If a
researcher’s theory were perfect. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. Thus. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). including: (1) two absolute indexes. 1998) – presently exists. For Study 1C.
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. (1988). the better the model is said to fit. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). in fact. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. 2006. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data.
the higher the probability associated with χ2. Hair et al.0. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). Thus.7. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. one incremental index. and a measure of parsimony fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.3 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. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).
3. pp. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. 1998. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). However.10 indicate poor fit. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 2006).
3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.
3. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2). 1998). 2006). an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7.7.7.
.00 in which values greater than . 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. 112). the ratio indicates a good fit.validation index (ECVI).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. an insignificant p-value is expected.7. the normed fit index (NFI).7..
7. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. the normed fit index (NFI. 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.7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. Thus. 2006).6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00 being indicative of good fit.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7.7.00 with value closes to 1.7.7. an RMR greater than . Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. Values range from zero to 1.
3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. Tanaka & Huba.00. The index can range from zero to 1. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.
.. 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.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Bentler & Bonnet. The index ranges between zero and 1.00 with value more than .
3. with higher values indicating better fit.
7.. 2006).7. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al.
. 2006. in this case. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. Although values range from zero to 1.7.00. p. 750). a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. Like other parsimony fit indices. 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.00.. It should be noted that. Browne & Cudeck.3. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.
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. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. considering its fit relative to its complexity. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. James. 1994). it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. In such cases. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. Values range between zero and 1.
1956). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 37). in this case. p. 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 distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 1976).7. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. it is said to be positively skewed.7.
3.8 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.05. 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.3. If the opposite holds. 2000). In this case. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.
Barrett & Morgan. 2005. A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 1997).normality of variable distributions. Marcoulides & Hershberger.
. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±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.
4. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.4% 333 62.
Table 4.CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research.1% 34.4% 269 27. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Then.5% 57.1 4. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1% 121 22.55).1
Description of the Samples Age.5% 6. with a mean age of 20.6% 82 15.6% 15.5% 27.9% 23.9% 14.1% 536 100% 54.9%
Total 441 100% 45.13 years (SD = 1.9% 977 100% 100%
. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1). descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.1. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
university. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.4% 146 14. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.3% 8.6% 12.1% 562 57.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.
5 per cent). range from 18 to 27). A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.
In Study 1A. range from 18 to 29).63. with a mean age of 20. 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.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. with a mean age of 20.
In Study 1B.68. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.35. range from 18 to 25).25 years (SD = 1. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.9 per cent).89 years (SD = 1.
In Study 3.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.
In Study 1C. with a mean age of 19. followed by Malay (27. with a mean age of 20. Thus.
In Study 2.53. range of 18 to 26).Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.
19 S.65. 1.2
Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. range from 23 to 73). Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.53 1.63 11. Table 4.9 2. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.7 4.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.25 43.3% of the sample.65
Male Female Malay
105 175 88 73 133
196 127 164 49 0
68 87 81 33 55
202 166 128 66 52
31 49 43 23 26
Note: N=sample size . 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.5 8. 2 and 3
Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.35 1.43 19.5
.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 % 12.3).
Table 4.D.89 20. Johor or Perak made up 53.
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.01 20. Kuala Lumpur.68 1.1.19 years (SD = 11. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.2 7. SD = standard deviation
4.4% of the sample.1 6. The mean age was 43.3 11.2.2: Age.
2 2.2 3.1.4 4.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses
N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.6 1.1 9.9 0.9 7. but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4).4 0.6 2.6 100
4.8 11. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.7 11.8 9.5 1.5 14.1% of the sample.7 100
4.7 3.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
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.9% of the sample. As the sample was
. Perak or Penang made up 50.2 17.1.3
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.8 5.
Table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.0 7.
Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and
precision of a measurement procedure. The 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 4.2 4.
In the present research.2. 2000). A Cronbach’s Alpha of .5). 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.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. 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. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 1978).
4. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.
754 .702 .749
.718 .811 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers
Study 1C (N=252)
No.786 .703 .715 .741 . of Item α
Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers
Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .738
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9
.810 .830 .734 .774 .808 .739 .887 .720 .890 .904 .827 .707 .711 .733 .756 .782 .Table 4.701 .798 .727 .727 .817 .747 .782 .910 .714 .730 .720 .783 .740 .824 .737 .772
α .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable
α .788 .768
α .783 .735 .715 .906 .701
.742 .784 .738 .808 .740 .781 .
953 . more than .804 . and those greater than .811 .857 .903 .800 .05 indicate good fit.2
Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. 1985).6. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. In Study 3.
Table 4.876 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.804 .08 to . Byrne. The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.808 Study 2 . 1998). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.803 .80.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT)
Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .805 .806 . RMSEA values less than . only Form A was used.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.804 Study 1C . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.802
184.108.40.2067 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. 205).3
Validity Test Results In the present research. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. depending on which is used (Byrne.80 or above).929 . 1998). 1998).801 .916 .
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. it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.10 indicate a mediocre fit. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom.4.958 . values ranging from . 1998.807 Study 1B .
and destination-activity orientation. If the value of CFI exceeds .98 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 1.97 .00 1.097
.000 . As shown in Table 4.00 .100.000 .089
4.99 .00 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.91 .99
.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 . Table 4.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.070 .00 1. RMSEA values in each case were less than .00
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.00 1.91 .00
.96 .00 .000 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. indicating good fits.98 .00 1.92 .000 .98 1.061 .077 .90.024
.7. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 .00 .95 1.96 .054
.92 1.00 1.3.047 .98 .96 1.96 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00.97 1. 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.90.098 .000 .00 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
. freeway urgency. 1992).074 .99
. externally-focused frustration.048 .097 .00 1.000 .00 .00 (the closer to 1.00 1. A third statistic.98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.92 .93 .99
. it is possible to have negative GFI. the higher the goodness-of-fit). and both GFI and CFI were more than .2.99
indicating good fits (See Table 4.030 .085 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .93
.083 .90. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.92 .000 .99 .2.00 .063
.98 .058 . verbal aggression (VER).059 .96 .92 .3. CFA revealed that parameter values for I. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.93
.91 .96 .2.97 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).93 .096
.95 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
.4.91 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.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).085 .93 .8.93 .95
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.073
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.071 . anger (ANG). under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.98 .92
. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).95 .081 .97
. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.3. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4. RMSEA values were less than .100.081 .93 .
.94 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .99 .98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .073
. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.089 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.97 .97 . derogation of others and revenge.100.94 .
Table 4.098 .97
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .058 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.93
. indicating good fit (see Table 4.081 .98
.92 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).025 .083
.96 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .10).98 .90.97 .055 .97 .90.98 .97 .98 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI
.098 .96 .096 .98 .97 .95 .095 .047 .9).100.96
.070 .98 . RMSEA values were less than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.088
.92 .(IND). GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.2. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.090 .98 .98
.92 .081 . RMSEA values were less than .95 .3.97 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B
Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
219 (.280) .379(.560(.140) -.188(.022 (.190) 1.020 (.280) -.351 (.140) -.106) 1.140) .280) .192(.120) 1.140) .323 (.920(.140) .126(. 1997).
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.085) 1.102) 1.280) .280) .280) -.511(.453(. 2005.409(.280) .091(.099) 1.11: Normality Tests. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions. Table 4. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.091) 1.297 (.140) .278(.280) .057) 1.140) -.064(.280) -.094 (.203(.356 (.560(.280) .280) -.192) 1.052) 1.226 (.246(..105 (.280) -.962 (.099) 1.154(.064) 1..064(.278(.107 (.183) 1.331(.582(.3
Normality.091(.191) 1. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.428) .260) .140) . Table 4.085 (.280) -.140) -.140) .280) .080(.05).183) 1.140) -.195 (.140)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.179(.179(.332 (.280) .297(.719(.146(.034 (.099(.010 (.403(.082 (.140) -.280) .353(.4.805(.085 (.140) -.099(.069) 1.140) .280) . Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.140) .140) -.140) -.140) -.140) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) -.126(.280) -.204(.186) 1.656(.140) -.280) -. Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) . 2006).239 (.408(.875(.409(.256 (.241(.410(.085) 1.107) 1.297(. In all cases.037(.
417) .360) .195 (.022 (.053(.219) -.359 (.101) 1.128) .973(306) .154) -.324(.392(.052) 1.247) 1.051) 1.841(.681(.306) .469) 1.972(.223 (.713(.153) .503(.048(.306) .007(.567(.186(.276 (.001 (.236(.209(.467(.210) .266 (.024 (.417) -.911 (305) 1.160 (.417) .210) -.003 (.057) 1.102) .153) .198(.435) .359 (.064) 1.128 (.084) 1.417) -.210)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.719(.147(.219) -.153) .210) .210) .219) .062(.994(.210) -.210) .153) .822 (.366) 1.435) -.214) 1.219) .153) .153) 983(.099) 1.024 (.435) -.210) .978(.277(.219) .106(.244(.852(.088 (.478(.156(.360) .360) -.306) -.147(.321) 1.451(.135) 1.022 (.913(.159(.270) 1.051) .417) .423(.306) -.501(.276(.110 (.962 (.210) .267) .417) -.948(.306) -.100) .300(.098) 1.130(.153) -.417) -.219) -.417) .847 (.915(.011 (.362(.256(.219) .537(.317) 1.153) .435) -.210) .338 (.629(.153) -.306) -.070 (.153) .417) -.306) .852(.098) 1.805 (.959 (.443(.138) 1.940(.414(.306) -.417) -.426) .375) 1.799(.370(.187) 1.142(.979(.533) .279 (.510) 1.497(.153) .295(.210) .131(.153) .11 (continued)
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level)
Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error)
Skewness Statistic (Standard Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.138(.417) -.807 (.297 (.715(.053(.271(.435) -.153) .540(.157) .006(.435) -.247) .Table 4.463(.913 (.210) -.106 (.919 (.153) .153) .113 (.219) .265) 1.259) .962(.640(.106(.812(.306) .354 (.052) 1.567(.952(.306) -.884(.435) -.104) 1.986 (.366(.293 (.417) -.360) .306) .264) .120(.435) -.327 (.030(.
. For motorcycle drivers. column a).12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.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. injury occurrence was much higher. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.3 per cent being hospitalised. 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: 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. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. if so.4. column b). column c).12. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. with 44.13). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.12. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.
14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32
More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in 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
. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.
Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background.Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122)
Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.
Study 1C. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. externally-focused frustration. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. crash occurrence and crash injury. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. and destination-activity orientation. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
aggression (VER).17 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.
Study 1B. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. in Study 1B. Table 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Also.15 shows means.05).16 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships
Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.4.
Table 4. 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.5. freeway urgency. However. All these correlations were significant (p<. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.05).5 4.05).
405** .804** .434** .376** .44 4.58 .2691
6.376** .201** .D.01 level (2-tailed)
.716** .247** .218** .339** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9.749** .027 1 .562** -.316** .396** .901** .280** .544** -.209** 1 .391** -.23 2.186** .202** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301)
Mean Distal Variables1 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (P) 3 Externality-Powerful-Other (O) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables1 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables2 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .553** -.57 4.155** .476 .3455 .533** .52 34.471** .96 19.15: Means.482** .Table 4.036 .246** .64 7.662** 1 .69 24.08 2.342** -.388** .442
1 -.625** .239** .818** 1 .97 43.371** .211** .340** .278** .04 26.147* .566**
-.381** .435** .516** 1 -.231** .942** 1 .22 3.76 3.331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .513** .78 .152** .191** .147* -.306** .129*
1 .45 6.345** 1 -.00 165.5 5.88 7.
9 12 71.531** .028 -.254** .964** 1 .271** .200** .067 -.268** .358** .444** .97 4 4.331** .254** .071 .56 2 4.60 10 16.53 19.338** .55 9 21.481** .347** 1 -.91 15 27.213** .587** 1 -.195** .254** .400** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .22 4.602**
.816** .380** .48 3.463** .4624
1 -.45 5 87.779** 1 -.43 12.586** .440**.176* .01 level (2-tailed)
.542** .342** .14 4.462** .173* .003 .06 3 2.505** .089 -.272** .514** .461** .414** .103 -.213** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1 1 9.172** .401** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .69 8.013
.334** .376** .382** 1 -.00 14 19.337** .278** 1 -.353** .3079 .4960 17 .279** .82 7 13.921** .452** .099 .355** .148* .153** .286* .240** .167** .540** .393** .555** .85 9.276** .178** .294** 1 .516** .411** .378** .816** .584** -.236** .D.147** .386** .489**.448** .25 8 18.731** .157** .855** .150** .438** 1 .9 13 46.172** .9 28.509** .16: Means.331** .523** .343** .50 5.140* .039 .366** .434** .407** 1 -.Table 4.580** 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 .688**.491** .372** .496** .520** .159 -.48 5.275** .5695 .324** .443** .310** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.445** .403** .355** .335** .847** .41 3.5 6 17.418** .762** .550** .430** .225** .355** .66 3.103 -.051 .669** 1 -.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.842** 1 .86 6.408** .491** .84 7.521** .763** .341** .518** .298** .312** 1 -.380** .363** .028 .343** .84 5.515** .319** .213** .162** .369** .697** 1 .
615** .413** .241** .348** 1 6 16.501 .081 .378** .016 .224**.183** .502** .193**.895** 1 13 26.342** .05 -.137* .17: Means.368** .-181** .298** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .281** .456** .235** .210**.545** .370** .52 7.275** .293** .85 19.162**.203** .7 -.304** .258** .178** .80 17.340** .97 -.003 .9 -.526** .434** .465** .186** .385** .70 1 2 4.392** .228** .109 .246** .264** .277**.228** .98 4.379** .349** 1 16 67.254** .291** .343** .278** .307**.199** .189** .11 12.422 -.167** .481** .033 .313** .17 -.856** 1 17 43.221** .592** .270** .387** .185** .735** .310** .428** .230** .095 .216** .356** .210** .506** .219** .448** .338** .095 .131* .296** .38 5.03 5.230** .446** .8 -.259** .265** 1 19 25.222** .306** .302** .181** .03 -.294** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.483** .423** .288** .Table 4.199**.235** .218** .89 5.49 6.516 .166** .191** 1 3 .81 -.202** .051 .745** 1 7 13.373** .476** .81 5.484** .057 .038 .725** .402** .278** .366** .252** .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 .286** .130** .139** .277** .69 -.862** .212** .838** .174** .263** .345** .17 -.151* .227** .530** .401** .103** .58 9.254** .364**.082 .251** .534** 1 18 19.00 -.404** .37 6.377** .069 .308** .70 3.306** .01 level (2-tailed)
.192**.241** .119* 1 21 .324** .192** .229** .412** .36 -.354** 1 5 88.31 3.148** .191** .151* .749** .259** .422** 1 9 22.166** .277** 1 8 19.109 .189** .158** .250** .D.292** .150* .245** .209** .31 -.141* .075 .454** .101**.270** .296** .565** .271** .268**.424** 1 12 18. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.78 8.64 -.275** .230 .343** .531** 1 10 16.261** .183** .226** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1 1 10.641** 1 4 4.110 .106 .390** .150* .402** .196** .9 -.120 .395** 1 11 65.281** .076 .451** .314** .7 28.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .67 7.364** .367** .304** .42 3.518** .91 -.202** .357** .320** .296** .18 -.305** .86 -.804** .508** .588** 1 14 20.183** .292** .323** .70 8.355** .224** .221** .383** .747** .311** .
4. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.
Similar to observed results in study 1A. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency.5. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.
. all BIT subscales. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.2
Results of Study 2 Table 4. externally-focused frustration.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. and destination-activity orientation.18 shows means. 1B and 1C.
941** 1 .413** .Table 4.795** 1
* Correlation is significant at .291** .917 3.264** .072 .200* -.750** .415** .5738
8.251** .325** .614** .6803 .043 .356** .290** .06 20.111 -.500** .192* -.374** .349** .48 5.183*
1 .621 3.409** .028 1 .14 27.139 .167 .50 73.165
.76 48.55 175.4966
1 .179 7.485 11.562** 1 .317** .269** .313** 1 .4683 .880 .259** .314** .240** .150 -.413** 1 .428** .226** .18: Means.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .201* .367** .219** .371** -.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
.758** 1 .01 level (2-tailed)
.233** .212* .418** .025 -.66 5.323 23.232** .182* -.334** .580** 1 .66 1.035 3.383** . 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.630** .081 8.376** .30 .122 7.
standard deviations and relationships between distal. However. 1C and 2. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1B. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. 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. Differing from Studies 1A.19.
. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. correlations between I and distal.4. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. In this study. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.19 shows means.
As indicated in Table 4.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. In general. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance.5.
82 5.128 .646** .156 .120 .12 4.152 .11 15.404 .658** .378** 1 .213** .213** .229** .65 75.240** .121 .149 .88
1 .604** .622** .092** .194*
1 .236** .576** .807** .263** .165 .864** 1 .588** 1 .072 .060 .225** .271** .234** .245** .166 .246** .071 .721** .19: Means.182* -.13 3.021
* Correlation is significant at . 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
12.061 .095 .816** .030 .204* .070 -.0301 .121 .054 .091 -.171
.275** .521** .82 11. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.067 .15 32.276** .872** .257** .3 6.561** 1 .032
1 .109 -.194* .222* .324** .454** .D.749** .618** 1 .173* .32 3.023 -.112 -.117 .43 8.161 -.2000 .040 .289** 1 .05 3.254**
-.091 .117 .172** .Table 4.147** .039 .54 11.148* .235** .51 3.072 -.261** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .141 .235** .149 .99 10.643** .31 8.103 .025 -.151 -.4 5.255** .74 15.197* .07 8.218* .371** .114 .42 66.418** .35 11.853** .060 -.178** .338** 1 .013
.180** .117 .84 2.167** .286*
1 .636** .45 19.17 20.240** .106 .268** .150** .028 .01 level (2-tailed)
.528** 1 .10 1.156 .373** .193* -.020 .292** .200* .018 -.06 2.023 .048 .32
7.401** -.116 .
01 Study 1C B=.180. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.102.120. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.117.063.01 B=.1.1 through H1. p<.1). These results supported H1. H1.090.315.20: 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=.01. p<. p<.
4. p<.01 B=. p<.238.1.080.1.278. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
occurrence.01 Study 3 B=.4 was not supported.088 p<. p<.135. p<.01 and Study 3: B=.01 B=. p<.095. freeway urgency. These results supported H1.229.01 B=.1.6.1
Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.3 inclusive. p<. Study 2: B=. p<.01 B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration.01).01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Study 1C: B=.125.01. Study 1B: B=. Table 4.01 B=.202.095.01 B=.048.01 Study 1B B=. p<.146.01.4. p<. p<.6
Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3.172.01 B=.04. p<.01 B=.20).01 B=. p<.041. 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=. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.063.034.01 B=.01 B=. For the destination-activity factor.01 B=.01
01 and Study 2: B=.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 B=.120. p<. Table 4. 1B and 1C (see Table 220.127.116.11
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.140.01).019.064.074.2.087.01 B=.095. Study 1B: B=.075 p<.24. p<.158. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.033 p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.054.05 Study 1B B=.035.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. respectively).01 B=.21).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=. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
4.01 B=.6.01 B=. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.091.01 B=. freeway urgency. Table 4. p<. p<. p<.01.01 Study 1C B=.22. p<. Study 1C: B=.
. These results supported H1.038. p<.059.01. p<.035. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.23 and Table 4. p<. p<. p<. p<.069.
* p<.73 170.64 26.92 157.31 161.77
5.44 178.52 25.89
25.01 N M SD F
186 88 18 9
161.77 165.35 24.074*
110 81 37 45 29
181.23: 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<.Table 4.22: 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<.41 167.82 33.50
27.25 25.48 171.320**
64 110 41 17 69
. N M SD F
221 60 19 2
4.43 20.98 33.15 161.82 168.06 19.30 22.32 28.56 175.35 155.29 21.05.32 147.60 185.98 171.16
Table 4.68 26.01.35 33.
05).12 161.53 17.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.Table 4.29
15. drivers who travelled everyday had
significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 1B.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<.01.
16. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.88 167.345*
67 69 33 45 38
170.77 16.14 15. and those who almost never travelled (p<. N M SD F
187 46 16 3
In Study 1A.01 14.73 24. In Study 1C.12 154.39 19.00 14.01). 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<. 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<. about once every two weeks (p<.05).06
8. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.52
3. On the other hand. * p<.81 167.05). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.
In Study 2.73 157.01).61 165.25).05. Drivers who travelled about
once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.06 160.
2.68 20.81 161.Table 4.64
24.31 78.65 73.S)
52 32 7 17 14
Therefore. Not significant N M SD F
3 16 23 91
82.33 78. 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.55
10.50 184. Not significant N M SD F
77 31 10 4
174.55 73. * p<. * p<.920 (N.52 172.71 168.97 8.82 162.05. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.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<.437 (N.81 22.528**
In Study 3. N. However.74 77.859 11.50
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 was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.27 14.S.753*
38 48 27 20
1.26 10. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.37 9.
Table 4.381 10.63
1.94 20. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.S.09 15. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
. N. However.01.01.60 72.80 22.47
5.62 10. In other words.58 188.26).05.81 175.
Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. Again. though.1 was confirmed.6. 1C and 2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.
4. For ethnicity. In Study 3. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. however.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. In Study 2.27). 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. only H2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A.2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. the lower was the total BIT score. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In this case. ANOVA results for age. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. 1B. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
.2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Contrary to the subhypothesis.3
Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.1 and H2. only H2.
ethnicity and age – were investigated.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect.been predicted by H2. 1B.
it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.2 were confirmed.00.
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A.05.05).01 F=19.9. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. t(250) = 2. p<.01 F=9.6.01). Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.3 was not supported.S.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.05).01 F=2. N.53. p<.01 F=1. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. H3. In Study 1B.44. N. Externality-Chance (C).81.2 was confirmed.S. In Study 3. however. p<.01 F=. In Study 1A and Study 2.01 F=8. H3.68. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.
4.66.62.05 F=11.562. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.S. p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.99.
t=3.56. In all studies. N.12.Table 4. In Study 1B.S
Not Applicable F=3.
t=2. p<. 1C and Study 2. p<.74. p<. p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). N. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.
t=3. N.S.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age
t=2. In Study 1C. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.
Therefore. p<.98. p<. male
. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.05.01 F=1.1 and H3.05 F=4.
Consistent with findings in Study 1A. 119) = 5.05 and p<. p<. F(2. 298) = 6. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. F(2.05 respectively. t(299) = 2. 298) = 3.476.
In Study 1B. p<.941.
In Study 1A.566.05 respectively. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. F(2. In Study 1C.
For Studies 1A. p<.041. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.462. F(2. p<. 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.01. E and P scores.
. p<.01). 249) = 3.05).05 and F(2. 299) = 3.503.05).527. 1C. t(120) = 2. 298) = 3. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05.01 respectively. p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05 and F(2. 299) = 5. p<.490.05. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.
In Study 2.01 respectively). 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. 1B. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.370.01).
3. in Study 2. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2 and H4.2.3 was supported. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1. that age influences hopelessness.2.05.1. t(120) = 2.5
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.3.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. 1B or 1C. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. H4. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.
Therefore. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.079.3 were supported. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.2 and H4. were supported.
.2. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. H5.1 and H5. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.3.1. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. so H4. H4. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. H4.3 were not supported. H4. H5.6. In addition.Therefore. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. p<.01).
However.2.1. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.3. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.
01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported.290.28). p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and (B = .354. H6. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.2 and H6. p<.3.01 and B = .01 and B = . H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. 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.
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.306.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.4.371. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.6
Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -.239. was not supported.
4.254. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.7
Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1B. were supported.341. p<. In Study 2. H6. In Study 1C.01 respectively). respectively).312. that internality would influence hopelessness.3.186. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.1.01. p<.01. respectively).2 and H6. p<. p<. respectively). p<. p<.01.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and B = .
Therefore. p<.342.254. p<. H6.1.6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. that the three locus of control dimensions
p<. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. externally-focused frustration (B = .247.05) but not for freeway urgency. p<. p<. p<. p<.05 Study 1C B=.S.275.415. p<.157.254. p<.01). p<.01).01 B=. p<. B=.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . H7.232. p<.280.232. p<.05).141. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.349. freeway urgency (B = . In Study 1C.01). p<.05). externally-focused frustration (B = . In Study 2.287.01).01 B=.153. p<. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . H7.157. p<.247. p<.05 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. In Study 1B. the higher the hopelessness scores.151. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05
In Study 1A.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=.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<. p<.349.254.
.Table 4. was supported in Studies 1A.05 B=.2.01 B=.153. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.01). p<.200.01 B=.05 Study 2 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .191. p<.05). that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.317.287.278.415.275. p<.151.151.01 B=.4. H7.
Therefore. freeway urgency (B =. p<. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.01 B=.01).418. p<.3 and H7. 1C and 2.191.288. p<.099.317.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .280.1. p<.01 B=. p<. p<. N. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .01 B=.141. externally-focused frustration (B = .
6.1. p<.1 and H8.01 B=.3.01 B=.006. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.336.01 B=-.01 B=. p<. With regard to H8.01 B=. With regard to H8.753. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.01 B=-. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.3.168.S. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. N. H8.4. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.1.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
.01 B=-. H8.2 and H8.208. p<. p<.S.315. provided support for hypothesis H8. N. p<. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. p<.2. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.077. N. B=.8
Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total
BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.2.229.178. p<. B=. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. p<. p<.1.388.01 B=.01 B=-.01 B=. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. the lower were mean total BIT scores.625.
Table 4. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.297. H8.S. but not H8.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.339.
Therefore. that the higher the subscale score for I. where only H8.044.29). p<.239. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.05 B=.
. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4. p<. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. p<. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.01 (see Figure 4.
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
150 low high
Figure 4. In Study 1C. 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.1).704. F=4. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.01 and F=8.581. =8.272.05. 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. Further.710.2).01 respectively (see Figure 4.909.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. F=4. F=7.1).
2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way
64. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.00 low high
Figure 4.00 MalaysianIndian
. F=4. in Study 2. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. First. multiple regression showed mixed results. p<. B = . the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05. 1B and 1C. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way
62. Kurtosis=-.6.05. p<.9
Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.033.00
66. However. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. R2=.327.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Figure 4.4). and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.070. 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. p<.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=.608.371). R2=. F=18. Kurtosis=-.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship
. p<.167. B = .
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance) Figure 4.
p<.05 respectively.05 Study 1C t=2.603.Therefore.603.01 t=2.467.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. N. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. t= .S t=2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. N. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. However. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.521.210. In Study 1C.1. 249) = 5. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.690. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.05 t=4.S t=1.31). however.01 t=-. and t(250) = 2.780. p<. With motorcycle drivers. p<. p<.05 t=. F(2. p<. p<.01 t=4.480. the H9.298. p<. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.S t=2.S.820.
Table 4. p<. p<. N.01. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.01 (see table 4. In both studies. and H9. In Study 1B and Study 3.690. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.677.164. N.032.2. were supported.
4. 1C and 3.01 t=2. p<.6.30: 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=2.30).187. t(300) = 2. p<.
F=1. F(2. N. p<.S.S.01). mean IND scores of Malay. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. N. F(2.01).804.521.S.398. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.01. F=2.01 Study 3 F=1. p<.763. N. 249) = 10. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.629. F=5.526. F=2.S. F=. N.561. F=2. In Study 1B.904. p<. F=1.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. p<.S. In Study 3.05. N. F=4.041. F=1.155.01.57.182.05 Study 1C F=5.
. 299) = 4. N.567.021.01). N. In Study 1C.
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 3.01 F=2. F=2.01). Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. p<.S. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. 299) = 5.S.S F=10. mixed results were found. N.077.422. p<.432. N.632.432.S. N.01 F=. F=1. N.S.564. F=1.
Table 4.S.S. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.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=2.041. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S.S. N.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.
4.32). the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. only H11.Therefore. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.
4. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.4. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.3 and H11. In Studies 1B and 1C.29). However. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4. Therefore. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. was supported. H10. H11. H10. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. respectively. however. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. freeway urgency.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.
. H11.2. 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. were all supported. The higher the total aggression scores. VER and IND subscale scores.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. were supported.1. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. H10.3 and H11.
In Study 3.
p<.01 Study 1C B=.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. and B = .01 B=.05 (see Figure 4. B = .01 B=. but not in Study 3.01. p<.428. p<. p<. N. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.01 B=. p<.370.216. p<. B = . and B = .235.01 Study 3 B=. respectively.01. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.380. the higher were total BIT scores.01.520.263. p<.540.01.05 B=.S. p<. B = .505.01 respectively. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.324. F=3.01.01 respectively. 1B. but not in Study 3. N. p<. p<.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors
Study 1B B=.545. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.5). p<. However.881. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.
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.370.01 and B = . Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. 1C. p<. Similarly.01 B=.01 B=. p<. Study 2 and Study 3. B = . Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
. Study 1C and Study 3.387. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.121. p<. p<.048.483.05 B=. Also.229. p<.565.491.01 B=. p<.385. B = .01 B=.183. p<.263.01 and B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.204. p<. B = .S.01 B=.Table 4. p<.461.01. B=.438. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. p<. p<. respectively.
R2=.316.01.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
. Kurtosis=-. Study 1C and Study 3.172.00 IndianMalaysian
48. respectively. R2=.362.929.961.6.01.131.003.00
42. 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=.01.01.516.645. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<. In other words.05. for Study 1B.076.271.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.100. and B=-.00 Low High
Figure 4. The moderating effect of I was significant.
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency
52. B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. F=100.00
46. Kurtosis=-.12. p<. p<. B=-. F=81.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6. R2=.00
R2=. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2=.01. p<.757.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.117. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Kurtosis=.6).01 and B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. p<. F=91.431.507. R2=. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.
Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score
Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score
Aggression Level Figure 4.297. and the moderating effects of C and P were
.387. Kurtosis=-.01.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. In Study 1B.01 respectively. R2=. Kurtosis=.01. 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=.694.6.297. respectively). p<.704. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.360. p<. F=78.794.015.897. p<. p<.369. F=94.015.069. B = .271.606. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. R2=. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.088. Kurtosis=-.12.271.01. respectively). F=71. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.109.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
significant. H12. 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.7). and H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
However.2. that the internality. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. H12. B = .3. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. and the moderation effect was not significant. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.332. p<. p<.01 respectively. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
.302.01 and B = .
Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores
Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores
Aggression Level Figure 4. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.
Therefore. 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 4.1.
Only H12.01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<.01. p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. 249) = 4. p<. H122 and H12.05.6.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.01). that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.263. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. However. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. 249) = 5. p<.1. 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<.
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. and about revenge F(2. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.279.05). with the sample of taxicab drivers. t(250) = 3. Also. 248) = 3.737. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. F(2. t(249)=2.343.13 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.885.05.05).01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. p<.01. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.
This means that.01 and destination-activity orientation. on total BIT score were also tested. p<.01. p<.2 and H14. p<. externally-focused frustration.
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. p<.
Therefore. B = . H13.1 and H13.01. were supported. H14.307.01. (that thoughts about physical aggression.379.01. p<. This means that.
4. B = . derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. B = .01 and B = . B = . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.2.192. the higher were total BIT scores.224. was not supported.394. were supported.413. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. the higher the total HAT scores. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.Therefore. p<.01. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.3. p<. H14.6. H13.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.
. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.364. respectively. B = .1.3. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. was supported. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. freeway urgency. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. was partially supported. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.277.
Kurtosis=. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Kurtosis=. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<.01. 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. F=55. B = . Normality Residuals: Skewness=.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.4.565.297. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=57.013. p<. p<.911. In other words. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01.8). R2=.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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.-554. R2=.6.085).
Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score
Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score
Aggression Level Figure 4.05. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.072).297.188.002.809. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
was not supported. were supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.1 and H15.6. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33). B = . The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.2.Aggression was significant. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.092). H15. was supported. p<.475.
. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.
4. p<.246.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.294. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. However.026.01. R2=.01.297.
Therefore. F=59. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. H15. Kurtosis=.01. B = .207. p<.
S S S N.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.S 1C P.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.S N.2.S S S N.S S S S S S N.Table 4.1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S P.S.S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S
.S S S N.S P.2.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses
STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.S N.S S P.S S N.S S N.S N.S N.S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S N.S N.1.S N.1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.1.S N.S P.S S S S S N.S S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S S N.S S S S S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.2.S N.S N.S S S S S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S
N.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2. S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 3 P.3.S P.S N.
S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S 2 N.S S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S
.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S S S N.S N.S P.S
STUDY 1C N.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S S N.S P.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S P.S 3 N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S S N.S N.S S S S S P.S S S S S S S S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S 1B N. P.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S
P.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8. blank=Not Applicable N.S P.3.S N.S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S= Not Supported.S N.Table 4. N.S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S S S N.
1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.Table 4.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S S S S P.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.S P.S
.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14. N.S S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S= Not Supported.S= Partially Supported.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S S N.S S 2 3 P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S N.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic 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.
F4 F1. C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F3. P. P. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.00000 . F3. C.00000 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.7.93 . P I. C. Externality Powerful-Other (P).34. BHS. e.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. 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. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Hopelessness (BHS). BHS.90 110. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F2. HAT Proximal Factors F1.93 .068 . AQ. HAT I.4.7
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 8.00126 .80 104. F3 F1. F2. P. P. C.102 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. BHS I. two were worthy of further examination.96 RMSEA .1
Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).f. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.97 63. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C. AQ. Hopelessness.93 .05522 . F3. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.
4.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. C. P.
.045 .02 d.58 35. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.38 100. HAT I. F2.00000 . freeway urgency (F2).g. F4 F1. Externality Chance (C).00111 . F4 F1. F3. F2.96 . F2.060
Note: Internality (I). 2002). Aggression (AQ). F4 F1. Study 2: motorcycle driver. AQ.093 . F2.
Table 4.087 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . AQ I. F4 χ2 49. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).97 .
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.42.96.5. AGFI=. with path coefficients = -. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.51 and PGFI=.91. Externality (Powerful-Other). 5. For Model C5. and PGFI=.=33. For Model C5. GFI=. RMSEA=.destination-activity orientation (F4).96. C6. For Model C6.
AGFI=.f.28 and . ECVI=.97.14.94. d. .29 and . .13.10).045. . RMR=.=24.97.
An alternate model. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. d.060. values were: NFI=.
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.42. ECVI=. but not as good as for C5. CFI=. RMR=.32. with path coefficients = -.10).26. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. which are detailed in sect.23 respectively (see Figure 4. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. . of the BIT score.97.043. Externality (Powerful-Other).35. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. Externality (Chance).
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. To aid this discussion.02. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. RMSEA=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.48. .98). GFI=.92) on accident involvement.3. For Model C6. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.22 respectively (see Figure 4. CFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.26.043. Externality (Chance).
. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. .92) on accident involvement.
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.97 d.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=35.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ)
. *p<.32* Externality (Chance) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.045 RMR=.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.57* Injury Occurrence
. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.58*
.99 P-value = .51*
.f =24 CFI=.Distal Context
.97 GFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.92*
Accident Involvement .63*
.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.56*
.58* Injury Occurrence
.31* Externality (Chance) .26*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
Accident Involvement .98 P-value = .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.29* Aggression (AQ)
.96 d. *p<.Distal Context
Internality -.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.060 RMR=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.f =33 CFI=.77*
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.50*
ANG. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HAT-D.084 .00000 . ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. HAT-P. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. IND. HOS.In addition.00000 . ANG. F3 F1.73 169. F4 χ2 108.93 .65 and . d.66 153. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).10.080 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). VER.00111 . ANG. F3 F1. F4 F1. F2. HAT-D. IND.94 169. GFI=. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. RMSEA=.91 . F2. HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. F3. F2. F3.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Distal Factors PHY.f. VER.41. HAT-P.
Note: Physical aggression (PHY).00000 .00000 GFI RMSEA .078. Hostility (HOS).f.41 d. IND.66). HOS. HAT-R PHY. HOS.=61. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. 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). VER. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.80) on the accident involvement. freeway urgency (F2). F2. Angry (ANG). F3.084 . CFI=.081 .13 respectively. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-D. Aggression (AQ).92 . HAT-D. HOS. HAT-P. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-P. IND.91 . F4 F1.95). IND PHY. HOS.91 . Indirect aggression (IND). Verbal aggression (VER). path coefficients = .66 131.35).91. ANG.
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
.41 GFI=.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.83*
.000 N=252 RMSEA=.Distal Context
Physical Aggression .65*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.66* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
.63* Indirect Aggression .62*
.69* Anger . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.078 RMR=. *p<.13*
χ2=153.65* .95 P-value = .f =61 CFI=.91 d.05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.60*
Physical Aggression .72* .58*
.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought
.68* Aggression (AQ)
. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.
The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F4
39. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).06722
. Externality Powerful-Other (P). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3 F1. F2. P.
Note: Internality (I).86
23 28 23
.12 d.f. CFI=.80 respectively (see Figure 4. Hopelessness (BHS). BHS
F1. freeway urgency (F2).65 and .36). the participants were motorcycle drivers. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.66) on the accident involvement. F2. BHS I.=28.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.94. P.12. RMSEA=. p-value GFI RMSEA
I. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. path coefficients = -. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. F4 F1.12). Externality Chance (C).2
Study 2 In Study 2. GFI=. d. C. F2. The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.33 33. P I. F3.94 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.95 . C.98). F3.f. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).047 . C.047.07580 .4.058 .
Externality (Powerful Other)
.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.12 GFI=.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
.99 P-value = .05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.70*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.17631 N=122 RMSEA=. *p<. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.65* Externality (Chance)
Internality -.Distal Context
.f =23 CFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.88*
Crash Occurrence . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
22 23 .3
Study 3 In Study 3.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.93 . the participants were taxi drivers.061 Note: Internality (I). AQ F1.03084 .35265 . CFI=. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. F4 50. C.00524 .95). C.94 .079 Injury Occurrence I.20 and . The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. path coefficients = -.39. AQ F1.=21. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Distal Factors I. F2. P. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Model included locus of control.
. P Proximal Factors F1. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. F3. F2.37).13). F4 Crash Occurrence 18. P.40) on the accident involvement. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F2.97 .061. p-value GFI RMSEA
Crash Occurrence. Externality Chance (ExC). 37.027 I.39 21 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. Hopelessness (H).95. freeway urgency (F2).4.20 respectively (see Figure 4. but not Externality. RMSEA=. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. d. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. F3. C.f. AQ F1. F3. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).f.59 17 . I.95 . GFI=.06743 . F3. Internality and AQ.7. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. C.82 28 .
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.20* Externality (Chance)
BIT4 .f =21 CFI=.39*
Internality -. *p<.40*
Externality (Powerful Other)
. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.74*
χ2=31.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.39 GFI=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.95 P-value = .63*
BIT3 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.03
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.95 d.Distal Context
8. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.39). Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.1
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.4.
4.8.38: 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.38). consistent with path analysis results.
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the
relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. Therefore. and. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.8
Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
accident involvement. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.
Table 4.8. where the
. 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.4
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.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
4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator
4.41).40).BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.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. in Studies 1A.8.
Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).
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
.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. 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.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes.
Study 2: t(422)= 8. p <. p <.442. Study 2: t(372)= -3.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.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. Study 1C vs.1
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness). p <. Study 1A vs. Study 1B vs. p <.
.665. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.663. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.837.993. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
4. Study 2: t(421)= 7.Table 4.162.426. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs.01.9. Study 1A vs.01.01. p <. 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. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.01. p <.9
Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.05. Study 2: t(421)= -4.
t(986)= 6. t(986)= 3.9.614.01.861.
.01. p <.01. Study 1C vs.704. Study 2: t(372)= -7.186.01. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -6.747. p <.01. p <. Study 1A vs. p <. p <.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. t(986)= 37.977. p <. t(986)= 34. t(986)= 5. Also.01.01. Study 1C vs. p <. t(986)= 30. p <.9. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 2: t(421)= -8. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
orientation”.926. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.200. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.775.01.01.687.484. t(986)= 7.01.577. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <.01.01. and to injury occurrence. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. respectively. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs.837. p <. t(253) = 2.402. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Study 1C vs.2
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Study 2: t(372)= -5. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension.433.211.01.801.01. p <. p <.01. “freeway urgency”. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4.
4. Study 2: t(422)= -6. and t(986)= 35.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(253)= 8.261.01. p <.3
Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
t(253)= 39. p <. t(253)= 8.982.881. and t(253)= 37. p <. Also.01and to injury occurrence.977. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <. t(253)= 8.01.737.01. t(253)= 31. respectively. t(253)= 35. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.946. p <.01. “freeway urgency”. p <.
.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.01.567. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 11.01.01.016.
ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
. multi-factorial perspective. They found gender.
In an earlier study. freeway urgency. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 2. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). al. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics.1
A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Elander et al. including gender. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader.1). 1995. 2002b). in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger.2. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.
Elander et. 1991). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.CHAPTER 5
5. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Evans. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation.4. (1993). road engineers and ergonomists interested in motor vehicle
safety have tried for a long time to understand the role played by human factors in determining traffic safety outcomes. 1993. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. Often. upon examination.
though. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. As a result. 1991). In the contextual mediated model. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example.
. except with taxicab drivers. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. if different. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. Further.total BIT score and component scores.
But findings were more complex than that. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. BIT. In other words.
In the present research. is that factors interact with each other. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. the proximal variable. All too often. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety.
… 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
Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.63. SD=1.1.hierarchy. SD=1. respectively). 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.1 months. 20. They were also more experienced (266.2 years.25 years. Malaysian-Indian automobile
. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. For taxicab drivers. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. Of course. SD=131. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. Inclán.
For taxicab drivers.
In the present study. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.3. SD=11.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. SD=. there are other possible influences.
5.6 months as licensed drivers. By virtue of their age and occupation.53.7 months. SD=22. respectively). social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. and 36. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. Because of occupational demands. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.5. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.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.01years. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. as well. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.16.
for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. spousal selection. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. financial matters and social affiliations are made. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. 2005).
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. rife with bureaucracy. In an environment where career choice. perhaps due as argued earlier. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. Devashayam. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results.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). The finding that Indian-
. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. when compared to Canadian students. along with selfpromotion skills.
Carment (1974) also found. 2003. however. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. influence peddling and status-related privileges. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. corrupt practices. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. were necessary to succeed. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system.
and.5 million in 1991 to 11. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. an internal locus of control. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.
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. 1999). 1999. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Nandy. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Indeed.
5. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
.7 in 1996. 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. where Cheung et al.8 million in 1996. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.5% annually from 9.3.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 1966. 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. Gomez. Sendut. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 2002. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). as a result. 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. Salih &Young. including locus of control. but two possible influences stand out. 1999. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. by extension. as a group. 1998. 1981).
there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. King & Parker. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Dukes. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
5. bringing them closer together in outlook. 2008. Parkinson. by the enraged driver. Miller & Rodgers. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miles & Johnson. 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. 318). among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002).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. Jenkins. Consistently. Nonetheless. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 2001. Oetting & Salvatore. 2000.women’s friendship patterns. Lawton & Nutter. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2002. Lynch. Clayton. Huff. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic.
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. more recently. 2001)
In the present research.
Their findings were replicated in the present
research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. during such incidents. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Petrilli et al. With taxicab drivers. Underwood et al. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. (1996) and Deffenbacher. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present.
Underwood et al. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
. Finland and the Netherlands. Parker. Deffenbacher. Oetting et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. These effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”). higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour.conditions. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. on a journey by journey basis.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. physical aggression. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). Further. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident.
in the samples studied here. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). Such responses. 2006).. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. the world and others). That is. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic.
Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self.strongly. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). but not when they involved the derogation of others.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. as well. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 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
. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. In essence. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. however. although still significantly.. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge.
The effects of aggression on behaviour. 1997). 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.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger.
Similarly. Hochschild. 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. (2003). and particularly with negative emotion. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. 1994. Certainly.are determined by chance or fate. p. 401). the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1995. 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. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Novaco. but there may be more to it than that. 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.e. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”).e. like any other mental task. true to operant learning principles. 1987. 1990. or self-talk. 1977). Meichenbaum. It is moderated by cognitive processes. 1979. Finally. “in ergonomics.
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Generally. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i.. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. 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. 2004. Downe & Loke.. Language loaded with emotional content.
1997). 2002. 2000.Robbins.5. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Carretie. 2004.. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Stein. aggressive emotionality. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Watson & Wan. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.g. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
. Making sense of. 1999. 2005). and attempting to exercise control over. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Martin. Hinojosa. Trabasso & Liwag. Lambie & Marcel. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Dien. 2000. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Performance
Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 1993). p. 1996.
Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
5. In fact. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Mercado & Tapia. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. MartinLoeches. Tomkins. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 162). 2002. hostile automatic thoughts. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.
p. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. 2006). or independent variables. who in 1970. including dependent and independent variables. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL.. First. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. Gavin and Hartman (2004). researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. 2006). factors represented by multiple variables. involved in the analysis. 1998). 2000).
According to Williams. By estimating and removing measurement error. 2004. Second. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. Hair et al. a multivariate technique. Structural equation modelling (SEM). EQS and AMOS. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. and perhaps most important. or dependent. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. When composing a model.434). Finally. In addition. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman.. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Karl Jöreskog. 2004. 2006).. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. explain criterion. or latent.
. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. 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.
TLI. and the root mean square residual were included. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. Williams et al. the goodness of fit index (GFI). there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. SRMR. In the present research. (2004) has been critical of most studies. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. CFI. Ketchen. as suggested by Hair et al. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Sümer (2003) added that. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. 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. the comparative fit index (CFI). Therefore. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (2004) noted that.2
Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory.5. when assessing the fits of measurement models. GFI.
Shook.5. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. etc)
.e. (2006). Shook et al. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following:
The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i.e. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.
Hair et al.
2006. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al.
At the same time. Md-Sidin. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 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. GFI.. 1998). provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.90. Hair et al.5. 2001.. 2006). it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 1998. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2001. CFI. RMSEA lower than .
It is argued here that. Sambasivan & Ismail. be a process that balances utility with statistical
. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. As a general rule. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.In the present research.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Maruyama. we would argue. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.
5. Fit index values (e. CFI and CFI) greater than . 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.g. Structural equation modelling should. 2000). significant p-values can be expected.
10) excluded the fourth factor. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 88).
There is some support for this position in the literature. In some cases. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.3). 4.1.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. two structural equation models. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. as suggested by Byrne (2001). 1C5 and 1C6. destination-activity orientation. statistical. However. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. and practical considerations (p. stating that.soundness. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. 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.7. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible.
In the case at hand. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. More importantly. Thus. 158).
.02 0.Table 5.034 97. Injury Occurrence 35. F2. C.909 0.
Fit Statistics (Threshold values)
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. P.02 0. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. C.96 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.043 129.97 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.96 1. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. AQ. F2.42 11. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. P. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.98 0.02 0.94 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 0.97 1. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.39 Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. AQ. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.499 0.045 0.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0.91 0.97 0.060 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.48 30. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.
provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Reason. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. farther along.1). it is 0. 1990. 2006).
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.
. goodness-of-fit. Manstead & Stradling. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. However.48. but still acceptable. Hair et al. Kayumov. 1996). one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. they should be dropped. Parker. 2006. Schwebel..It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. in particular. Storey. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. For practical reasons. Nahn & Shapiro. based on the notion that each variable included may.42. while for Model 1C6.
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. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. et al. in this analysis. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. 1995.
. on crash outcomes. externalitychance.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .34) and injury occurrence (r = .5. freeway urgency. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.28 and . externality-chance.28 respectively). 2003). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. with five distal factors (internality. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.29).66). for automobile drivers sampled.35 and . The results suggested that the alternative model. Sümer. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.21). externality-powerful other.5.35. Evans.14. In Study 1C. via BIT. 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. aggression. 1991.5. . Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = -.4.45). As observed from the investigation of structural paths. externality-powerful other.6. . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.g.
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . Rothengatter.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.4
Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
5.26. and hostile automatic thoughts). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.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.1). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.4. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . Results indicated that the first alternative model.55).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. 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. which sampled motorcyclists. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. freeway urgency. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.65 and .
. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).25).
5.23) and injury occurrence (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. Aggression. crash occurrence (r = . internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.24). and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.20) and injury occurrence (r = .41). externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. had a better fit than other alternative models. externality-chance. on the other hand. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.
the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. their crash occurrence. freeway urgency. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.20 and . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. For motorcyclists. 4. had a better fit than alternative models. with four distal factors (internality.5
What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.6. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. hopelessness. externally-focused frustration. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. as a result. Distal
factors. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-chance.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. Finally. aggression). the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. for crash outcomes. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. However. such as internality. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. externality-powerful other. in turn and indirectly. externality-powerful other and aggression). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had no significant effect on BIT scores.
.5. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. with the sample of taxicab drivers.4. externality-chance. Results indicated that the third alternative model. crash occurrence.5. for the sample of taxicab drivers. via BIT. crash occurrence. to measure outcome. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.3).
both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. Huguenin. however. 2005). four of which were comprised of students from a single university. chosen at random from taxi stands.
In the present research.6 5. 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. a total of five samples were taken. To a large extent. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.
. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 278279). 2004).
Sekaran (2003) points out. 2005.1
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.5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. Further.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. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
were. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.
2). involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. with a mean age of 20.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Sabah.6%. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. as elsewhere.55). Since. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.In Malaysia.
With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.13 years (SD = 1.6% (Study 1A: 99.2% and Study 2: 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Selangor.2%). 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.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Study 1B: 100%. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.
Table 5. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.
. Study 1C: 99. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The most populous state. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.31. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. in Malaysia. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.
9 (9) 7.887.9 (3) 2. Not all states have the same number of drivers.260.2 11.880 3. For that reason.8 (6) 6. In both cases.0 4. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 0.100. 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.3 (12) 11. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.503.6 5.387.2 (11) 12.7 (14)
But.576 2.1 (7) 8.500.000 Per cent of national population 26.200.4 5.396.8 6.6 2.286 1.7 (2) 2.807 733.150.000 2.000 1.500 1.000 2.000 1. Table 5.2 7.5 (4) 4. in this case.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.300.2 (13) 11. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.6 6.
Table 5.0 12.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.5 (8) 3. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.9 9.188 1.000 3.2 (1) 3.6 (10) 7.2 (5) 0.Table 5.
.2 3.818.2: 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) 7.004. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.0 8.674 1.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.000 215.
606 24.34 3.774 Participants’ State of Origin (by license 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
12.37 3.75 4.92 25.68 7.104 6.19 4.24 2.91 2.19 3.212 39.35 4.96 3.561 1.041 92.28 3.467 25.13 6.97 12.170 13.635 1.026 10.496 187.24 0.093 5.55 7.89 3.63
.46 8.230 266.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.251 324.428.98 0.34 11.22 17.920 181.4 4.20
12.144 12.137 698.003 10.27 14.198 156.36 8.88 3.84 11.490 525.45 9.93 0.617 10.768 6.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.70 3.88 2.70
12.85 1.90 5.029 273.76 3.725 70.785 393.Table 5.16 2.600 135.064 9.93 9.735 165.43 2.19 7.50 29.588.163 10.05 2.
38 0.92 25.725 70.63 11.66 11.76 3.64 1.64 2.467 25.59 12.75 5.03 4.4 4.856 310.104 6.112 347.283 770.74
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
12.992 776.28 3.170 13.49 12.003 10.93 9.48 1.221 36.45 2.606 24.722 255.212 39.10 9.38 4.02 10.288 444.133 705.561 1.37 3.43 2.615.79 13.59 1.46 14.305 276.20
15.144 12.679 90.46 5.33 4.026 10.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.656 821.88 2.93 7.98 0.029 273.617 10.496
Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.35 4.768 6.27 14.49 0.14 7.Table 5.36 8.727 161.82 9.88 3.989 6.02 7.22 3.064 9.995 233.63
824** . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.
Table 5. At least on these dimensions. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.5: 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) . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. at least. 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.814**
1 .4. was representative of a high risk driver population. it is possible to say that sampling. participants came from – or.3 and 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin
1 2 3
1 . it can be argued that they were.
Of course.Table 5.903** .796**
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.
1998. e. None of these
variables can be substituted by group means.g. as in other psychological research. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. in studying driving behaviour.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.6. Keskinen. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.
5. demographic factors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. Rothengatter. 2001).2
Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002). Elander et al. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. accident distributions by age. 296).
accidents. violations and accidents should be linked together. Again.. Hatakka. attitudinal factors. 1998. Much important data is available in official statistics. However. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. unless the variation within the group is very small. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. The problem. 1979). the data has to be disaggregated. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. however. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. for instance. The assumption. 1996). heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. in studies of driving behaviour.g.
In the present research. though. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. In future studies. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.g. that the score that one receives on a measure of personality or behavioural orientation today was the same some time ago when a crash occurred is often tenuous. 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. Visser and Denis (2004).
5. 13).. 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. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.6. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups.
. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. Yet. therefore. Particularly. combined interview and observational methods. as well. muscle tension.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. the longer the time period for data collection. blood pressure. as in a study reported by Chalmé. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. the more information is lost through memory lapses.3
Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods.
a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. as well. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. and the hypothesis (H2.6.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 2002). First. Second.
Unfortunately. 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. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. 1971). 1999). Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. individual standard. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
5. Mercer.In the present research.
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.4
Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s.
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. 2002). “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability.. Wood & Boyd.
In much the same way. 1993). 1982). There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. eventful or recent. Kahneman.frequency that were used in this research. 181). 2008). 1993. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 1974). and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. Specifically. Often. 2003. 2003). Slovic & Tversky. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 121). although this has not been firmly established. p. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 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. frequency or distribution in the world (p. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 1973.
. 2004). but because they are inherently easier to think about. in other words. but not always.
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. But. 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.
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Sansone. for example. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. 2001) . during periods of low traffic volume.
Finally. 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. 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. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons.. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares.
Deffenbacher et al. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
. road conditions. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. on one hand. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 2000). Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. asked participants to record the time of day. where driving histories generally include lengthy.
Of course. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. 1991). Similarly. in their studies of roadway aggression. (2003). it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al.In the Malaysian environment.
during the study design process. 2005).. 1985. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. It was felt. Ranney. 2004). Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.g. categorical perceptions of driving frequency.
In addition. Summala. 2005). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified. have high information content.7 5. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches.
To summarise. In the present research. 1991). 2002.1
Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. Michon. collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature.studies undertaken. 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. Good theories are simple. 2004). 1994). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 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. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. are testable and contain no contradictions.
Further research is required. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
. selfreported measure used here.7. 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. 1997).
Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. check facts.
Throughout the development of traffic psychology. often in graphical form (Grayson. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. The answer is probably not. 32). 294). and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. stating that. Grayson (1997) agreed. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances.patterns of relationships. on the other hand. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. The answer to this question is possibly yes. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
. p. or represent processes. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. at times. if they are modest in ambition. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology.
Hauer (1987). 94). The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. 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. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. in particular to structure data. 1997.
entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. In the present research.
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). Yet. and if they are resultscentred (pp. 95-96). 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. hopelessness. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. who argued that. In
. 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 2. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. 304).3). Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. for instance. In this case. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated.
The 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. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans.
agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al.
5. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. for instance. 2003).other studies.. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. anxiety. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. sensation seeking (Sümer. as defined by Grayson (1997).
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. not on everyday driving.2
Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist
are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA). crash-free driving. Kerlinger (2000) and others. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.7. psychoticism.3. openness. The contextual mediated framework. The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving. While the present research
. 2005) were included as distal variables.4). extraversion. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. With several exceptions. 2. conscientiousness. depression. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. while still very much a model and not a theory. much current research. According to Ranney (1994).
those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general.
Within their proposed conceptual framework. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight.
Following this reasoning. As a result. On the other hand. or at least to react more slowly. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. 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. no matter how reliable a safety device.did not test any of those theories specifically. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. They argued that locus of control. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. Conversely. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert.
. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for.
consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. could be screened out.3
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes.In the present research. 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. 1996). Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour.
. 1996). Summala. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.. 1997. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa.7. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Typically. once identified. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. task capability (Fuller. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. though. scarce resources for screening drivers. 2004). Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. al. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Gidron & Davidson. Specifically. 1982). external locus of control and hostile attributions. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. 2002. Christ et al. 2005.
5. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression.
for the last fifty years.
Slinn. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1). Unlike 100 years ago.4.
5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1957. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.7. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. and machines are highly intricate (p.4).5.4. teams of humans. or legal intervention. World Health Organisation. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4
Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5. 1957). From this has emerged the growing
At the same time. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. education.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1961. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.7.7. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.
The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Stough.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way.
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. depending on environmental factors. 2005). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. 2003). roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. 2001). operator workload and performance (Inagaki. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. At the same time. These have been applied to in-car. or the adaptive automation concept. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). for instance. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks.6). (Bishop. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. 2001). there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Suda & Ono.
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track.6). Murazami. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Maggio & Jin. 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. Sadano.
. In the case of LKA.
Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Black. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 2004. 2003. changes in traffic speed. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. 1997). in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 2000).with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 1999. Tassinary. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Ulrich. was associated crash outcomes. Herzog. Parsons. traffic
. in particular to pursue environmental. 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. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Fountaine and Knotts. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 1998).6). Brown & Noy. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. 1993. Richardson & Downe.
The present research also found that freeway urgency. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic.
Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 1996. 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.
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. inexperienced drivers.
Probably. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. 1992). Proctor. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. and whether this information varies according to the situation. Dietze. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. p. 1991). 309). however. journey purpose or other human factors. however. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. questions of alternative urban structure. 1996. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 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.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003).
created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. “rumble strips” in expressways. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. keeping.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding
Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. infrastructure. and likelihood of. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).1. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.Table 5. departure warning. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot.1
lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. lane road conditions. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. 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.
. 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.
H 1. transitions for. etc.
the systems intersection modification. are travelling. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure..
H 1. the host vehicle. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings.2
lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. than the safety standard.(continued)
H 1. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.1
Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles.
. point. Radar.1. ACC systems provide modifications. to in-vehicle display terminals. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.1. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. generally pilot”. traffic lights) safe. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. t-junctions and vehicle displays to warn the feedback to the driver when pedestrian crossings that will speeding driver of impending that speed is being exceeded trigger high-illumination intersections. including those in adjoining lanes. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.
. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.
H 1. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.3
vertical displacement. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. 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. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. “Speed tables”. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.1. signs with calming or vehicles. Such devices include chicanes. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.(continued)
Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. environment and other frustrating stimuli.
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. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. weather-related road conditions. H 1.1. safety messages. This information allows drivers to avoid or. at least.(continued)
electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. notification of construction ahead.
4.5. 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. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. 2001). and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.7. The present research suggests that. like community centres or places of worship. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. It suggests that. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. to some extent. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. teachers or the police.
. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. 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.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). however. 73). They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education.
The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. N6). 1030). 265). however. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers.4. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. p. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.
First. They also stated. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. p. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. 2007. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. was studied in a
. from the findings of the present research.7. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes.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. that “Of these three
Second. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. or an internal locus of control. 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.
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. such as visibility of enforcement. or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. 1978. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.5. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. The bias of false consensus. legal measures change least often. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.
Reason & Baxter. 1992). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. after all.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus).
Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying
. Ajzen. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that.sample of drivers by Manstead. By doing so. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Parker. on the other. 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). 498). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Azjen & Fishbein. to consensual beliefs of powerful others.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 1991.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Stradling. drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. is allowed to occur in a Just World. 2001.
it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
. to traffic regulations. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. Similarly. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. or not adhere.drivers’ decisions to adhere.
gender. when risky. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. Sümer et al.
In doing so. 2002. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Sümer. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. hopelessness.g. as proximal to the crash outcomes. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. In the present research. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes.CHAPTER 6
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. it was concluded that driver experience. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e.
A contextual mediated model. 2003. locus of control. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Iverson & Rundmo. ethnicity. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. 2005.. 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. Results have indicated that. Wállen Warner & Åberg. as expected. age..
. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003).
Of the variables studied. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. it is argued here. 1987). leading to the tentative conclusion that it is the aggressive aspects of Type A behaviour that are instrumental in relationships between TABP and safety outcomes. 1974). traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1982). like Brown and Noy (2004).. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 2003). 1973). it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. Further. However. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic.In the current literature. 1995. In most cases.
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. the best fit usually implies the best model. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. task capability (Fuller. Hoyt.g. In the present research. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge. Montag & Comrey. as well as statistical grounds. Some inter-ethnic differences in
. 1986. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. and accident risk (e. or external locus of control. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule.. Harrell.
1998. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. For example. However.. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. Rothengatter. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. 2005. in combination. a multi-disciplinary approach was used.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter.aggression were observed. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations.g. cultural anthropology. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). Several authors (e. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. 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. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. as well. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Huguenin. Groeger & Rothengatter. they
. road engineering and ergonomics. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. It is argued that this is a
In interpreting these effects.
form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. educational and enforcement spheres. 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. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. 313). Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. In the present research. Indeed.
It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. injuries and death. 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. management.
Aiken. M. (2003). and Law. (1999). Current Opinion in Neurobiology. (2005). Drinking and driving: intention. Mohd Zulkifli.REFERENCES
 Abdel-Aty. 1867-1874. Journal of Safety Research. Musa. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data.. S. H. 473-486. MY: Pearson. Mohd Nasir.R. (2007).
Åberg. Subramaniam. (2002).B. (2003). individual crash level approach.
Abdul Kareem. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. H. (1993). 10(2). (2002).
Ahmad Hariza.. Petaling Jaya.
af Wählberg. A. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
.T. Radin Umar.
Adolphs.E.. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. A. T. Third edition. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 25. A. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.S.A. M. R. and Pederson. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences.H. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). 289-296. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. (1979).E. P. (2003). A. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 169-177. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. 12.
Abdul Rahman. L. 38(5). Puzzles & Irritations.
Abdullah. 5. R. 581-587. Crash data analysis: collective vs. P.. Psychological Testing and Assessment. and Anurag. L. N. 35..H.
af Wählberg. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. 31-39. and Kulanthayan. K. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Bahrain.
London: John Wiley & Sons. A. M.
Arbous.) European Review of Social Psychology. (1991).H. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.
Armstrong.. 33(3). and Hewston. A. (2004). 47.105-110. and Beckmann. I. Aggressive Behavior. Women’s Studies International Forum. 50(2).
Ajzen. Current Psychology: Developmental. W.D. B. Age.C. I. and Christian. Biometrics. 404-415. 23. S.J. and Haigh. J. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. and Kecklund (2001).
Archer. 623-633. 291-307.. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 7. gender and early morning accidents. and Fishbein. Nature and operation of attitudes. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. (2001). (2005). 22(3). Tubré. Human Factors. M.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. J. I. and Kerrich.
Ajzen. J. I. A.E. 179-211.G. (1952).
Åkerstedt. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.
Arthur. (Eds. T. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. (1987). 303-313. Social. (1985). T. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. and Tubré. Journal of Sleep Research. (1997). Day. 52. M. (2003). Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. In Kuhl.J. W. E. The theory of planned behaviour. C. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Bell.. In Stroebe. J. 10.T. J.
Amin. (Eds. Edwards. 10(6). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 340-342. Annual Review of Psychology. S. (2001). Learning. 27-58.
Barjonet. 34. In Rothengatter. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. 51(6).-E. P. (2001). (2002). 89-105.A. Barrett. M. R. and Carbonell Vaya E. (1997). Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. Human Performance.
Barjonet. 279-284. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. GJ. (1998). In Trimpop. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.bakrimusa. (1991).
Arthur. and Biehl.M. When hope becomes hopelessness. October 18). 21-30). 231-234. Manila: Philippines. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2(4).
Austin. Retrieved April 4. 2007 from http://www.
Aylott. (Eds. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Dischinger.
Ballesteros.F. and Kenny. and Alexander. R.S. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Boston: Kluwer. 4(2). An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. 34. F. (1986).
Aschenbrenner. G. R.M. and Tortosa. and Tortosa. J. (1994). P. S. (2005. (Eds.V.D. P. W. and Carson.
Asian Development Bank (2005).
. F. Groningen.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2002).-E.. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.31-42. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. T. Wilde.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. NL: Styx.
Baron.C. D. 1173-1182. B. 14-29). R. P-E.M. (Ed. K.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier.A. strategic and statistical considerations.
Bakri Musa. M. In Barjonet. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia)...L.
Hostility and Violence. 149-178). Cognitive models of depression.
Bentler. (pp. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. 157-179). 5-37. In Zeig. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.H. D.
. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.T.K.. A. A. 29(1). D. Psychological Bulletin. and Berg.
Beck. and Bonnett. 1(1). (2005).F. (1975).T. R.T..G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.T. A..
Belli. P. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.
Beck.F. 234(11).C.E. A.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. D. G. A. and Loftus. (1976). Palliative Medicine.T..T. Hartos. and Mills.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field..S. and Weissman. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. (Ed. R. (1974).G. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. L. (1999). M. D.M.
Beck. K. 73-84. (Ed. In Rubin. Journal of the American Medical Association.
Benzein. Kovacs. In (Flinders. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. 1146-1149. Theory: the necessary evil. A.C. (1993). New York: Meridian.J.
Beck.T. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. A. 218-229). New York: Teachers College Press. 588-606. A. 19. H. and Simons-Morton (2002). E. A. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. The level of and relation between hope. 88. (1980). Lester. J. (1993). (1987a). J. and Steer. (Eds. (1996). Health Education and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. 42
Beck. Cognitive therapy.
Beck. Weissman. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. and Trexler. E. A. (1987b).
. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. B. 38(3). (1994). Anxiety.. McKee.bernama. (1995). 95-104. (2002). 313-322. (1981).. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. 44-51. A. J. Graziano. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Managing the high costs of road deaths.
Boyce. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. and Geller. R. Retrieved March 30. F.
Bettencourt. and Haney. J.S. Accident analysis and Prevention. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Applied Ergonomics.. Malaysian National News Agency. M. March 12). 39-55. Journal of Personality Assessment.
Blumenthal. Applying Psychology in Organizations.
Blacker. 43. 2007 from http://www. 53. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 37-40. T. 472-481
Binzer. R. S. S. T. K. D. 391-399. Talley.
Boff. (2006).A. Psychology and road safety.B.A.E. M. Introduction to Ergonomics. and Shimmin. A.
Ben-Zur. and Bonino. H. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern..php?id=185148. 132(5). New York: Routledge.D. Stress and Coping. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. 34(1).C. R. 15(1). (1984).com. 37. New York: McGraw Hill.my/bernama/v3/printable.S. Benjamin. (2001). Psychological Bulletin.
Bridger. and Valentine. E. F. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. (2006. 751-777. 45(1). (2006).
318-330. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. 267-278. (1989). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. In Rothengatter. (1948). and Wilde.
Brindle. Political Geography. and Carbonell Vaya. 641-649. Amsterdam: Pergamon.C.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. I. T. and Huguenin.
Briggs.E. (Eds. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. (2004).
..D. R. 20-23. 14. Ergonomics.S. and Ghiselli. 9-19). 32(1).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. D. W. 105-124. (1997). and Cudeck. (1982). P. 37(4). 4(4). Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. G. 24.P.E.J. (2005). Goldzweig. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. and Noy. E. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Brown.. 219-241.S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). R. Personality and Individual Differences. T.C. Haliburton.
Bunnell. W. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control.W.
Brown. I. Schlundt.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. International Journal of Educational Development.G. Levine. 29-38
Brodsky. N. (1995).D.
Burns. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 445-455. C. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. 21. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. (2007). In Rothengatter. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. 18(2). (Eds. 345-352. and Warren. R. Multivariate Behavioral Research. R. M. (2002). R.
Brown.K. observational data and driver records. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. (1992). 27(3). T. G. C. 24(1). E.
31. T. 290-299. L.L. 736-751. (2002).K.
. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. A. B. 9. (1981). 22.. M. A. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Human Brain Mapping. (1957). (1998). J. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. (2001). E. L. B.F. and McIver.A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. and Kline.W. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. In Bohrnstedt.. Environment and Behaviour.
Caird. (2004). J. Multiple perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. and Tapia.. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.
Byrne.. W. A. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. and Warren. 65-115). (2004).G. Cohn.
Carsten. (2000).L. and Durkee.. M. Parada. G. D. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Ergonomics. J. Applications and Programming.. 35(6). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.
Carretie. 15981613.. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Accident Analysis and Prevention.H. Martin-Loeches. 21. F. and Borgatta. J.W.P. J. (Eds. Hinojosa. In Fuller. (1999). 63-65.
Carmines. J. (Eds). R.
Byrd. International Journal of Psychology. T. 45-50.M. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Gonzalez.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp.
Byrne. and Nasar. E.H. 343-349. O. Mercado.
Buss.J. M. 47(15). M.D. Applications and Programming.
Buss. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.A. & Santos. (1974). and Cortes. E.
(Eds. 2008 from http://www. T. P. and Denis. W.
Chaplin. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. (2000). and Huguenin.0. Retrieved March 31. 10(2). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Chalmé. What are we allowed to ask.. March 20-22. New York: Dell.ghipr. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. 467-477.
Chaloupka-Risser (2005). and Yeh.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Kuala Lumpur. Visser. Brazil.
Cheung.. Personality and Individual Difference. Taiwan.pdf
. The Star. 557-562..org/workshops/05CampoGrande
Chan. (2007. Monash University. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. (1996). (2004). November). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Cheung.
Cheah.G. R. T.M. (1985). S.-H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. H. F. N6. 61-71).-L. D. Matto Grosso do Sul.F. M. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.H. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. R. J. and Nash.ictct. 2007 from http:www. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.
Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Y. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. (2007). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. S. Campo Grande. (2006). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved October 15. November 12).
Chang. 21(4). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. R. Dictionary of Psychology. J.W. Sunway Campus. Malaysia.P. 109-122. and Lim. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Howard.-H. In Rothengatter. 41. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. R.D.
Carver. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.
. 679-684. R. (Eds.. Safety at work. In Chmiel. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.. MacGregor. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. Kasniyah. W.G. C.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. C.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (1992).. N. H. (2007). V.D.E. 974-981. 24(2). 2007 from http://www.
Clarke.. (1996). 28(2). (2000). M. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. and Chan. 196-203. R. 13(2).M.
Christie.L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. D.pdf
Conrad. R. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. and Darviri. 125-129. Retrieved December 7. P. C. Bakou.S. (2005). P.’ Injury Prevention.makeroadssafe. E. Cancer Nursing.
Christ. Tzamalouka. 255-274). 193-200.. A.
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006.. and Truman. M.
Chung. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. (2004). Y.C. and Costello. Towner. Panosch. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
.. 1283-1289. Smiley. Time vs.T. Lamsudin. P. N. )2007).D. Bradshaw. Accident Analysis & Prevention. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. Demakakos. hopelessness and suicide ideation. Bartle. 431-443.. T. J... and Bukasa. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 22(3).
Chioqueta.. S. Helmets.P. French. 377-390). G. 39. June). S. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues.. and Stiles. (Ed. Personality traits and the development of depression. E. 33. (1999).. 38(6).
Chliaoutaks. and Ward. N.
Chipman. N. T. B..K. (2002). Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Koumaki. C. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. In Rothengatter. P. Journal of Safety Research. and Huguenin. and Lee-Gosselin. Personality and Individual Differences. Cairns. Ward.
P. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. 95-104. (1991). 98-117. and Huguenin. F. and Froggatt. 2007 from http://blog.F. Legal and Criminological Psychology. (2006.
Cresswell. G. 64.thestar. R. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. K. (1961). Amsterdam: Elsevier.J. 10. 20(5). Journal of Personality Assessment. and van Koppen. P.
Costa. In Rothengatter. p.
Davies. October 18). 21-50.T. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. and Patel.asp?id-7003. February 8). Accident proneness. 16(5). Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults.S.
Cooke. R. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004).
Davin Arul (2005.
Cowardly Malaysian drivers. American Psychologist. D. N. 10. R.
Crittendon. (2002). W. (1996). D. The Star.com. 152-171. 161-175).
de Waard. T. (1962).
Crombag.A. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. H.D. and McRae. Amsterdam: Elsevier.M. Retrieved April 5. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.L. R.J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Santos. (1995). Wagenaar. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. W. and Durso. N48
de Raedt. L. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.my/permalink. 263. 5(1). Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society.
Cozan.A. Mental workload. In Fuller.R. (2005). [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online.. Applied Cognitive Psychology.M. J.W. 45-62. (Eds. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. P.
729-730. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.
Dewar. E.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 50(2). P.E.T. (2003). E. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. E. Behaviour Research and Therapy. D. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 575-590.
Dharmaratne. J. 28. and Brookhuis. Women’s Studies International Forum. 14(12).B.F.L.
Devashayam. J. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Cognitive Therapy and Research. S. R.L. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2005). R. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. (2003). Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. (Eds. P. R. (Eds.. M. R. 47. Age differences – drivers old and young. R. T. 209-233). K. R. and Morris. 26(1). Lynch. 111-142). R.. S. (1996). On the measurement of driver mental workload. E.R. J. 333-356. Richards. R.L.
Deffenbacher. T.S. Tucson. E. P. In Dewar. L. J. (1997). (2002b).
Delhomme. R. (2002a). The expression of anger and its consequences. Lynch. (Eds. R.S. Lynch.R. Individual differences.L..) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. E. (2004).
Deffenbacher..R.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. and Olson. Tucson. Filetti. Oetting. (1999). E. C. and Olson. 383-402.N.
de Waard. Lynch. and Oetting. 41. (1998).A. Oetting. Huff. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 161-171). (2000). 123132. In Dewar. 373-393. In Rothengatter. Ergonomics. and Salvatore. and Carbonell Vaya.W. 1-20. and Ameratunga..R.S. Petrilli.
Dewar. T. 27(4).L. Oetting.C. J.D.
. 34.E. T. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.
Deffenbacher.E. N.S.. Personality and Individual Differences.D.L.
Deffenbacher. and Meyer. and Swaim. 5-17.L.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers..
Ebersbach. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. and Loke. (1997). C. M.A. 53. N. 14(2). In Rothengatter. Dietze. A. Health Education Research. Lippold. (1987). (Eds.. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 1146-1158.T. T. (2001). Social Science Journal 38.R. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.L. Bahar. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. Lim.M. R. 323-331. (1999). Malaysia. Ball. T... November).
Downe. Women drivers’ behaviour. S.Y. (2003). Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Powers. H. Science & Technology...L. 525-535. C. (1999).
Dobson. Sungai Petani.
.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. S.. (2004.E. L. R.a. (2003). L. M.A. M.S. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. A.
Dukes. Nigeria. 223-231). 31. J. A. and McFadden.P. C.. and Rodgers. negative emotional and risky driving. The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA). Kedah.G. J.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Miller. ‘Fatalism’.L. (Ed. Clayton... E. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. M. M. 33. Brown. W.
Dodge. T. and Coie. 197208. S. Mohd Yusuff. (2007. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.E. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press..D. and Mayser. (Eds. D. Knowledge transfer. In Dorn. Accident Analysis and Prevention. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. 278-285). Asian Institute of Medicine. Jenkins. 263282.
Draskóczy. and Carbonell Vaya..
Dixey. December). J. K.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. and Che Doi. 85-92). In Khalid. and Ballard.G.
Engel. 279-294. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. Causal ordering of stress. H. A. New York: Academic. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. 17-26).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.L. Lalovic. satisfaction and commitment. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.ictct. R. 159165. and Turecki. R. (1984).. (1971).org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. A. A.. 4(3).. A. R.R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. G..
Elangovan. In Lefcourt. A. (Ed.M. Lesage. Brno.. Annals of Internal Medicine. 201-22. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (2001). (2005).
Elvik. Kim.. G.A. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Leadership and Organizational Development. Boyer.L. West. Ménard-Buteau.. G. Journal of Transport Geography. (1993).D. C. Annals of Internal Medicine.
Engel. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.
Dunbar. J. (2002). 69. 293-300. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. 50(13). N.
Elander. 74. (1968). J. C. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Czech Republic.. G. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis..
. 209-306). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dyal. To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. In Underwood. J. (2005).
Dumais. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. (1996). 771-782. and French D. Chawky. Retrieved December 25. 113. 2007 from www. 838-844. Psychological Bulletin. March 20-22. (1962).
E. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. New York: McGraw Hill.
Farmer. 16. L. E. L. Herth. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.J.000 and RM5.
Ey. 84). K. and Popovich. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Patterson. 38). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. and Chambers. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (2000). E. (1986).M.
Evans..G. December 10).M.S.
. B. 19-36. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. Risk Analysis.6bil losses yearly. J. 81-94. S. (1991). N22.
Evans. 421-435. 23(5). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. and Chambers. L. (1939). (1984). (1976).
Farmer. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. W. and Chambers.. E.. London: Medical Research Council. 86(6).
Farik Zolkepli (2007. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.M. S. p. London: Medical Research Council. 6(1). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No..
Evans. Barnard. (1995). C. London: Medical Research Council. 55).
Farmer. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. M. (1929). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. The Star. L. (1996). Hadley.G.
Ferguson. E. American Journal of Public Health.
Farran. L. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. 784-786. G. and Alpert. (1926). Klesges.A..
47-55. S. 12(4). (1986). (2004). H. consequences and considerations. causes.
Fishbein. (2005). (2000).. Malays and Indians compared. A. 63-77. Belief. In Fuller. R. 9. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. 412-426. P. and McCartt. and Bragg. Cross Cultural Management.
Firestone. (1975). Journal of American College Health. 77-97). I. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. 38(5). Journal of Counseling Psychology. M.P.
Forward. P. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A.E.A.
Finn.W. 289-298. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. (1990). A. 51(1). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 461-472.
Frazier. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. 66. Linderholm.
. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. S. 115-134.
Fuller. 37. and Barron. R.
Fontaine. and Ajzen. Tix. Intention and Behavior. K. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. J. M. S. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forward. (2007). R. and Seiden.R. New York: Knopf.
Ferguson. and Rosenman. (1974).. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.. and Santos. (2006). 137-145. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. R. Human factors and driving. Attitude. Recherche Transports Sécurité. and Järmark. (1998. B. I. and Richardson. R. S.H. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. E. Accident analysis and Prevention.
Fuller. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese.18(4). Journal of Safety Research 38. Teoh.
Fuller. Women and traffic accidents.A. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. San Francisco.W. (2005).T. August). 207-213. R. R.
(1999). T. E. Y.
Glass. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. C. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.S.
Gidron..S. and Pender. 16(5).A. (2003). 109-128.
Fuller. 109-116. 12(4).
. L. Ergonomics. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. and Syna Desevilya. 93-96). Amsterdam: Pergamon. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. A. (1996). 13-21. (1997). Journal of Applied Psychology. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. (1977). Aggressive Driver.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Hillsdale. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. G. E. (Eds. E. 487-491. Journal of Food Products Marketing.T.B. Rajasingham-Senanayake. J. Behavior Paterns. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. (2006). D. and Gomez..
Ghazali. 19. Y.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.W.
Graham. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application.
Grayson. 540-546.T. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components.B. and Carbonell Vaya. and Brown. Nandy. 42(9). D.E. and Davidson. R. C. (2006). In Rothengatter. (2008). (1949). N. H. R. 6. Gal. MY: Sage. Petaling Jaya. E. Stress and Coronary Disease.
Galovski. 1233-1248. 58(1). S. and Mahbob. (2006). Mutu.A. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 203-220. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. and Hyder. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.E..
Garg. 33(6). A.
Gidron. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. A.C. and Blanchard.. Malta. McHugh. (1999). European Journal of Public Health. E. E. 167-202). N. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. R. T. (Eds.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
Lee.M. Mahwah. 97. (1983). 2nd Edition.
Levenson. Cancer as a turning point. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.. H.407-423.M.
Lefcourt. D. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. (1976). 177-196. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. L. D. R.
Lerner. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
LeShan. (2002). Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 38..
Levenson. 397-401. Jehle.. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. (2005). 3. Barrett..G. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research.
Lefcourt. Applied Ergonomics. and Morgan. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Accident Analysis and Prevention. W. (1975). (Ed.
Lenior. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. A. New York: Academic. British journal of Psychology. In Lefcourt.M.
Leech. Journal of Personality Assessment. G. (1974). N. G. K.K. (1973). In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.
Lawton. A.M. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. New York: E. H. 253-269).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Dutton..J.A.
Levenson. H. H. pp. and Stiller. 93. H. IV.L.V. and Nutter.C.M. H. Janssen. Malay dominance and opposition politics. Billittier. 37. R. 659-662. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Conner. Journal of Social Psychology. 479-490. (2001). H. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. C. 377-383. (1989). (2002). E. 41.B. Moscati. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.P.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 213-222.S. (Ed. R. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. 7. (1979). H.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. February 2). 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. 39(3). The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. H-F.
Looi. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. W.
Lim.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Hwang. 10. I. (1997).htm. (1981). 8-9
Liverant. 536-545. March 26). H.. 2007 from http://www. J. 59-67. Huang.P. D. (2004). Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. K. The Star Online.
Lin. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Levenson. A. Psychological Reports. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. (1980).asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.P.com. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 36. (1999.
Levy. S. L.. 125-127. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.
Lonero. powerful others and chance. H. Differentiating among internality. (2007).M. In Rothe.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. (Ed. L-L. Neighbors. Retrieved April 5... H-D.my/news/story..A. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. M-R. In Lefcourt.S. New York: Academic. Wu. D. 15-63).M. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.limkitsiang. Retrieved May 14. and Yen.
Lonczak. (1960). and Donovan. 2007 from http://thestar. 11. (2007. and Scodel. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum.
R. 129. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.. R. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Report No. Balla. 103. In Dorn.A.F. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. 18(4). 233-252). and Williams. (1997). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. (1994.. C.
Maakip. and McDonald.
Marsh. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1989). A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. behavior and cognition.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. P. Victoria NSW. A. Journal of Personality. (2003). Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Massie. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. S. and Balla.L.
Lourens.A. 62-67.M. L.
. 68(5). H. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. (1986). R.
Matthews. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 299313. 593-597.L.W. (2000). G.
Marcoulides. W.. J. D. Watson. 869-897. and level of education. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Macdonald. May).R. (1988). age. (1995). Annual mileage. of affect.W. and Mooran. M.A. C.M. Campbell. (1994).
Martin.P. and Wan.28. M. J. and Hershberger. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1998). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Journal of Rehabilitation. (1999). Psychological Bulletin. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. I. Quality & Quantity. (Ed.M. H. K.K. G.R.L. and Jessurun. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Luckner.L.. 391-411.R. A.L. Australia. Vissers. 185-217. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. J. Malaysia.. 27(1). 55(2). 73-87.F.
Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. 9. Retrieved April 5. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support..
Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. S.
McKenna. and Burkes.P. 34(47). R. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Ergonomics. Hampshire UK. M.. (1974). F. G. E. I. M.E.
Mendel. I. J. P. L. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. New York: Guilford.V..
Meichenbaum. Sambasivan. Rinehar and Winston. J.P. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. 769-778.. Unconscious suicides. 45-52. Risk Analysis.. New York: Plenum.malaysia-today. The University of Reading.R. 2007 from http://www. Malaysia Today.P. [ in press]. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
McKenna. 71-77. Personality in Adulthood. F. (1989). Ismail.htm
McConnell. 23. Gilbody. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Waylen. November 6). (2007).W.
McMillan.. (2005. 37(6). and Costa. D. (2009). (1977). Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. (1998).
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. F. (1986). Perspectives Psychiatriques. and Brown. 649-663. 173-181. and Neilly. Understanding Human Behavior. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Duncan. (1989). S. (1983).
McRae. D. G.D.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.E. A.
Mercer. 29. Psychological Medicine. (1990). Beresford.
44(2). M. (154).
Monárrez-Espino. 147-161. 335-342.E. 33(3). Finland. (2006). from http://www. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. Kayumov. (1983.J. Aggressive driving. L. P.L. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. and Keskinen. what should we do? In Evans.A.. (1949). Retrieved May 23. 195-211. A. Safety Science. Simulator performance. L. (1985). (2006). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Nhan. l. C. E.L.
Mintz. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A. and Niemi. (Eds.
Mikkonen. 21(4). (Eds. G. J.org.C. Turku. 61(3). Washington DC.org/pdf/agdr3study. 38(6). Journal of Applied Psychology.M.L. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. Statistics.my/en/street_smart_statistik.php. New York: Plenum. L. Bulmas. and Johnson. 341-353. H. 2006 from http://www. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. M.
Michon. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.
Mintz..A.. E. (2003).) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety.. and Laflamme. J.
Miles. In Aggressive driving: three studies. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. (1997). V. In Helkama. and Schwing.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. 2007.
Michon. 6(2). 401406.
Mizel. Time intervals between accidents. and Blum. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Retrieved December 15. K. R. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. microsleep episodes. May). J. Hasselberg.
Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). and Shapiro. (1989).aaafoundation. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.panducermat.pdf
Näätänen. 8. D.
Most. and Comrey. W. A. Journal of Applied Psychology. L. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (Eds. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 137-144. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.
Novaco. and Summala.
. and Krasner. Accident proneness and road accidents. H. Transcultural Psychiatry.. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India.S. R.
Neuman. R. 38(1). Journal of Affective Disorders.
Niméus. W.T. T.B. (1999). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 167-202). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Amsterdam: North Holland. Fifth Edition. (1974). (2007). Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Visual Cognition. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. (1994). and Summala H. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents.L. Petaling Jaya. 15(2). 320-388). A. 125-132. A. R. (1956). 243-261. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. (Eds.
Nandy. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. (1987).L. and Maniam. R. A.
Näätänen. and Gomez. 42. 339-343. 164-174. In O’Donoghue .
Montag.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.L. J. 32-37. A. I.
Mousser. Religioin 37. MY: Sage. Boston: Pearson. 51-63. (2003).) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 6. New York: Allyn & Bacon. K. P. and Astur. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. S. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (2007). 72.
Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. and Z. N51. 40(10). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Our roads are filled with selfish drivers.L. British Journal of Psychiatry. R. J. (2007.. Straits Times. Injury Prevention. 445-460. R.
Ohberg. K. Ergonomics. 4.
Noy. Garner. (2001).
. F. P. and Santos. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. J. Human factors in modern traffic systems. A. 4(2). Aggression on roadways. 654-656. December 9).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. and Olson. (1996). In Fuller. E.
N-S highway still one of the safest roads. I. 34.
Olson. UK: Ashgate.
O’Connell. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. (Ed. P.W.R. Oxford UK: North Holland.. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. (1998).
Novaco. M. P.
Novaco. p. and Hermida.38. (1997).B. 253-326). Tucson. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.L (2002). In Baenninger. R.F (2001). 43-76). (1997). Driver perception-response time.
Ogden. Driver suicides. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. (1996. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 92-93.W. Temes.
O’Neill. 237-252. says operator. Tropical Medicine and International Health. February 8). R. [Letter to the Editor] The Star.S. A. Zwi (1997). and Lonnqvist. R. W. 468-472. p. A. (2002). Pentilla. B. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. (Eds. 2(5).A. In Dewar. and Williams. 201-215). (2000). M. J. Aldershot. 171.W.. 1016-1024.
R. Anger on and off the road. T.
Özkan.. (2008). 38(5). and Kaistinen... J.S. and Summala. 456-461. N. O. Ulrich. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Parker. 1036-1048. T.R. 113-140.
Parker. J. and Schneider. 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. 507-526. 37(1). Finland. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving.G. and Synodinos. H. and Huguenin. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. (2002).T. Ergonomics. R. British Journal of Psychology.
Parker. 40. and Lajunen (2005). T.M. (Eds. M. L. Journal of Environmental Psychology.. D.
. 92. (2001). Driving errors.
Parsons. Retrieved December 20. J. and Grossman-Alexander. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. C. T. C. A. (2005). 34.
Papacostas. (pp. Lajunen. Manstead.D. (1998).ictct. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Reason.E.
Parsons. (1974). B. Personality and Individual Difference. 38(3).pdf -
Pai. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. D. (1988). R. driving violations and accident involvement. 3-13. Helsinki. 2007 from www. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. (1995). Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Tassinary.S.S.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Lajunen..G. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 479-486. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 18. D. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 533-545. Hebl..R and Stradling.W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 125-134). 42. (2004). T. S.A.
Parkinson. and Saleh. M. W. 229-235. Traffic locus of control.
and Al Haji.
Peden. L.) (2004). Sleet. 9-14
. 35. 8(1). (1986). and Baldwin. 12(3). Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. D. and Hyder. March 20-22. Geneva. 2007 from http:www. G. and Peters. M. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A.. and Mathers (Eds. G.s
Pelz. (2002). Quera-Salva.H. T. W. (1980).B.R. Taillard.J. and Renner.R. Simple reaction time.
Per. M. Bioulac.
Philip. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Brazil. D. A. (2003). Morristown NJ: General Learning.
Perry. J.. A. 1153. (1971). London: Taylor & Francis. Jarawan. Superstition. R.. 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.. 875-878. Automotive Vehicle Safety. E. Scurfield. and Åkerstedt. (1999). Perceptual and Motor Skills.C. E. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Retrieved March 31. (2002).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Perry. Perceptual and Motor Skills.J. Mohan. P. A.M. (2005). Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. B. 68-79. U.. (1976)..ictct. Campo Grande.
Phares. D.A.and Schuman.. 63. 91..A. Hyder. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 147-154. S. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. World report on road traffic injury prevention. 324. Locus of Control in Personality. Matto Grosso do Sul. Journal of Sleep Research. 3. K. D. 619-623. British Medical Journal.
Peters. 201-204. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. and Singh. (2000). A. B.
J. (1976).S. J. 16(3). (1990). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. 1315-1332. K.
Ranney. (1989). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Chalmers.
Prociuk. 299-300. 49(4). Traffic Engineering and Control. D. 733-750. Manstead.J. S. 317-333. T.J.J. L.
Preston. S. J.S. 32. C.D.
Reason. and Corlett.
Plous. (1991). reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. J. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. A. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Reason.J. Breen. S. 33. Ergonomics. S. internal-external locus of control and depression.
Proctor..E. and Harris. 26. (2000). 78-80. R. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
Radin Umar. E. 369-374
Renner. (2005).. Stradling. Hopelessness. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Baxter. (1965). (2007). T. Human Error. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 566-573. 284-288. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Rautela.I. and Lussier. S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.H. 673-678. (1996). P.. 32(3).. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. 32(2).. and Campbell. Rider training. W.
. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. F. and Pant. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. and Langley.N. R. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. (1990). Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. C. (1994). 3112). 334-343.
Reeder. Disaster Prevention and Management. and Anderle.-G. 29(1).A. Cambridge University Press. (1993).
37(1). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. R. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.L.. and Solomon. (2007) Statistik2006. (2005). Accident Analysis & Prevention.
.P.S. P.A. Singapore: Elsevier. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. and Downe. (Ed).efpa. 453-460. T.B.
Risser. R. Anger. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.G.
Retting.Y. Organizational Behavior. Journal of Safety Research.
Romano. 485-489. Retrieved May 23. (2000). 37(3). 2007 from http://202. S. K. 2007 from http://www. In Lim..
Romano. and Nickel. S.. Ergonomics. 1-7. Tippetts. Retrieved December 11. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. and Voas.G. Stress and Health. M. R. (2003. A. Theories of science in traffic psychology. In Rothengatter. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.
Robbins. and Voas.
Risser. 45(8). Tippetts. and Huguenin. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. 569-582.R. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].html
Robbins. P. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.64. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. 34(15). E. R. (1999). Report to the General Assembly. (2004). R. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. cities. S. (2002). Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.190. (2003). (2000). W-R. R. April). S. Journal of Safety Research. Weinstein.D. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. P-A. H.
J. P-E.B.B. and Bhopal. (Ed. 43(3).
Rotter. 80. 45. J. (2006).
Rothengatter. J. (2002).
Rotter. topics and methods. Capital & Class.P. (Ed. M. 84-115. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. 88. (2002). (2007).
. 308-331. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. 595-600). Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.B. 3-12). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press.P. J. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Psychological Monographs. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psychologist. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (pp. Boston: Kluwer.B. 428-435
Rothe.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.
Rothengatter. In Rothe. whole issue. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. C. A. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. (1990). G. T. (1998). 5. T.
Rothengatter.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Traffic safety: content over packaging. and Shahar. 249-258.
Rotter. J. G. In Underwood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1966). (Ed. (2001) Objectives. In Barjonet. and Bhopal. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 214-220). M. T. T.
Rowley.(Ed. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. 43(1).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2005). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 10. 489-493. (2005). C. 56-67.
Rosenbloom. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. T.
Salminen. 37(2).malaysia-today. Retrieved December 11.
Salminen. (1999). 2003 from http://www. Correlations between traffic. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.
Rude drivers lack emotional control. Kuala Lumpur. F.my. 23-42).A2.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000).). Thrills. September 26). Kuala Lumpur. S. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. The Star. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 29(1). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). (2006. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 33-36. IBU Pejabat Polis.
Sadiq. p. Kuala Lumpur. Road Safety – Back to the Future. R. sports and home accidents. (2002). occupational. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.
Saad. IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].htm
. Retrieved May 22. IBU Pejabat Polis. S. J.A. Bukit Aman. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. M.
Sabey. 2007 from http://www. (2005). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. In Fuller. and Santos (Eds. 373-376.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). J. September 29). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Bukit Aman. (2005. Accident Analysis and Prevention.rmp.gov. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). (1997). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. B. Bukit Aman. and Heiskanen.
.T.F. A. I. M. 117-147). Ericsson. M.. Nagoya: Japan. 484-491.L.F. D. Jr. conscientiousness. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. 38. (2006). (2004). A.
Sagberg. Asian Survey. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.
Sendut.A. and Schade. (1997). C. 34. J. and Panter. M. Jr. C. V.I. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. A. A. and sensation seeking. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Fosser.. and Rizzo. 6.. F.C. Morf. 35. and Bourne.A. L. v.C.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. The research process: of big pictures. B. (1995). November 15).
Scuffham. H.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 673-687. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. In Honjo. (2003). and Sætermo.C.
.. and Langley (2002). 41. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp.F. K.E. little
details. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). and Bourne..
 Sansone. S. K. (2008. Ball.).E. (Ed. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. M. L. C.
Schlag. C. 6(9). Personal correspondence. P. (1981).
Scuffham. and Young.K. 293302
Salih. J. Applied Economics. Healy. Regional Development Series. 179-188. and Panter. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. 29(3). In Sansone. Severson. (1966). 314-318.
Schwebel. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Traffic Engineering + Control. P. K. (Eds.T. 801-810. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. and the social psychological road in between. In Healy. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Morf.
Sharkin. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.
Shapiro. Dewar. New York: John Wiley & Sons. R.H.
. S. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.L.
Sharma. H. B. (1988). Journal of Counseling and Development.
Shook. and Payne.J.
Sekaran. 46(15).. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.E. 51(1).
Siegel. D. P-E. (2004). The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement.. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. and Warshaw. and Kanekar.L. Hult. 325-343.R.P. C. A. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. (2000). (2003). (1988).
Siegriest. New York: McGraw Hill. D. Journal of Consumer Research.M and Kacmar.. (Ed. Automobile accidents. 397-404. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 3-7. (1962). B. M.T. 1. K. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Boston: Kluwer. American Journal of Psychiatry. (2003). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Strategic Management Journal. 119(3). (1998). E. Ergonomics.M. G. U. 180-205). Summala. Hartwick. S. C. Ketchen. P.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.E. (1956). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. 25.. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 361-365. M. L.
Shinar. (2007). 15(3). J. suicide and unconscious motivation. 237-240. 137-160.
Selzer. Fourth Edition.. and Zakowska. D. 1549-1565.S. In Barjonet. and Roskova. 66.
(2007).D.. 477-492.R.. (1977). M. Fishchoff.sirc.
Slovic. S. E. International Journal of Stress Management.A. Auto safety and human adaptation. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1
Snyder. J.C. Crowson.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp..
Stanton. Ergonomics. Retrieved December 1. expression and control of anger. Stress.
Sinha. C. FL: Taylor & Francis. B. J.G. N. 14(4). 50(8).K. Journal of Risk and Insurance.
Spielberger..A.J. and Coombs. B.C. 49-68). Matthews. 1029-1030. Reheiser. 21(4).. Lichtenstein.J. and Poirier. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. Boca Raton. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. 1-18). 44. and Sydeman. C. August). H. Oxford UK. and Watson. B.
Slinn. 237-258. N. Corrigan. P. 2007 from http://www. Kurylo. American Psychologist. (1998).
Social Issues Research Centre (2004. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. A. (1992). Issues in Science and Technology. P. S. In Stanton. Product design with people in mind. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. In Kassinove. 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. R.A. (Ed. 1151-1158. (2004)... 47(8). Houston. B. Retrieved December 25. (1995). P.D. Measuring the experience. London: Arnold. N.
. D.). (2001. and Guest. (Ed. M. C. Jr. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. and Frank. 386-397.K. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.
Smiley. Winter). (2007). (1997). 2007 from http://findarticles. Cognitive Therapy and Research..pdf
Spielberger. Editorial. B.
Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 247-254. The Methodology of Theory Building. D. 139(6).
 Stough. N.
Stokols. Cheltenham..L. (2001). 44(3).A. E. Ergonomics. (Eds. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.R. M. (1996). N. Traffic Injury Prevention.
 Storey. and Liwag.. P. and Ryan. Journal of Applied Psychology.) Intelligent Transportation Systems.E.. (2003). 1359-1370.
Sümer. 37(4). In Stough. N. M. Type A Behavior. Morrison. (2005). 467-480. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Maggio. 43(9). M.. New York: Guilford. R.. and Erol. In Lewis.. J. N.
Stanton.C. and Jin. J. N. Trabasso. 681-688. Palamara. 63.
Subramaniam. (1993). M.E.M. 529-544. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. (1988). Bilgic. T.A. R. 2(4).
Stein. and Pinto. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. R. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. Safety-Critical Computer Systems.W. R. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. (2001). 279-300). (2005). Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. (Ed. (1978). Stokols. and Havland. R.
. and Campbell.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. A.R. 178-182. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. UK: Edward Elgar.. (2000). T.
Sümer. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. M. J. D. N. Sümer. Journal of Psychology. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. 35. D. and stress..
Stewart. 949-964. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Traffic congestion.
Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. Human Factors. and Merisalo. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 22(1-3). M. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. (2005). Journal of Traumatic Stress.
Sümer. 442-451. N. H. Koonchote. H.
Swaddiwudhipong.. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. 703-711.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. In In Rothengatter. H. Accident risk and driver behaviour..
Summala. Özkan. Personal resources.N. 193-199. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Summala. and Lajunen. 82-92). G. (1988). (Eds. T. 38(3). S. (1986).
Summala. In Rothengatter. (1980). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. vehicles. (2005). S.
Summala. Safety Science. 491-506. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. Mahasakpan. 103-117.
Sümer. P. and Gunes. A. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Summala. 41-52). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. W. 18(4).K.. T. (Report 11). Karanci.. (1996). P. and Tantriratna. (1997). H.. H. and Carbonell Vaya E. 21.
Summala. R. Nguntra.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. Berument. H. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. H. (2006). H. N. H. and de Bruin. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. (1994).
Summala. (Eds. 31. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. G. In Underwood. 331-342. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. 383-394). Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. T. and Näätänen. (1996). (1988). T. (Ed.. Nieminen. 38. pedestrians and road environments involved in
. and Punto. Helsinki. T.
Summala. A. Ergonomics.
. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.
Synodinos. In Barjonet.
 Tanaka.. 25(1). Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. 18(4).A. (1996). E. and Kitamura. 42. S. D. and Huba. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.
Tanaka. E. and Kitamura. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. (1985).R. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Kuhn.
Theeuwes. Ono.. (1998). Boston: Kluwer.
Tanaka. and Theodorson. G. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.M. Ono. J. (Ed. Journal of Social Psychology.
Thompson. Fujihara.. 241-257. S. 52(6).
Theodorson. Sakamoto. Sakamoto.M. G. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. (2000). T. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 138(5). N. In Grimm. and Yarnold. Fujihara. S. 609-615. and Layde. S. (eds. G. A. and Papacostas. 581-590. (1969). New York: Simon & Schuster. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.C. International Review of Applied Psychology. 353-369. and Fragopanagos (2005)..
Tavris.E.233-239. 37-44. T.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. P. (1985). J.R. P-E. 34. J. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation... Journal of Clinical Psychology. E. C. C. 167-172. P. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. Neural Networks.J. 33(2). B. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 241-263). (2001).
Taylor.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.S. (1989). The effects of road design on driving.G. L..) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. (2001). The interaction of attention and emotion. Y.
.T. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Mills. (1999). (2001). 321-333. (1974). J. (1993). American Journal of Psychiatry. (Eds. 147-152.
Turner.. 106(5). 207-332. 385-424.
Underwood. and Kirkcaldy. accident involvement.
Ulleberg. 2. P. Personality predictors of driving accidents. O. 445-448. Personality and Individual Differences. 55-68. Volume 3: Attention. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. (1996). and McClure. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. D. 23(1). G. 7. G.W. and Kahneman. 10(3). A. London: Academic.
Underwood. A. and Kahneman. C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Underwood.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. B. G. 32(3). 279-297. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving.
Tversky. R. Science. Personality subtypes of young drivers.. and Vavrik. and Everatt. Cognitive Psychology. Enns.E. J.) Handbook of Perception and Action. (1997). D. Judgment under uncertainty. Anger while driving. H. The accident prone automobile driver.
Trimpop. and response to a traffic safety campaign.A and Hobbs. (1973).M. 4(4). Injury Control and Safety Promotion. 123-130. R. A. (1949).F. 185.. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. (2004). D. In Neumann.
Thurman. 5(5). 5.
Tversky. J. Wright and Crundall.
Trick. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. P. J. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. C. G. and Milton. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. 1124-1130. (1985). and Sanders. (2003). Chapman. W.
J. É.B. In Rothengatter. H. T.F.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 42. (2004). Amsterdam: Elsevier..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Cockfield.” Recovery. Harris.
Vavrik. and McIntyre. (1999).org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. W.
Velting. A. 24-29. (2005). and Huguenin. Smart. Caserta. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Van der Hulst. (2000).
. (1998). 444-458. Italy. J. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. In Underwood.. March 20-22. A. Ergonomics. A.. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Brazil. and Rothengatter. D..D. S. G. (2005). Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints.. 26. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. “Accident prone.ictct. 181-190). 336-345. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Harrison.
Vassallo. J.A. M. E. Bergerson. 2007 from http:www. Campo Grande.pdf
Vallières. (2007). W. 9(2). 43(2). On-line driver workload estimation.F. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. S.J..D.
Vaa. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. 210-222.
Verwey. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Retrieved September 1.ictct. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. T. Sanson. Ergonomics. (Eds.A. and Vallerand. 39..
Vasconcellos. R. Retrieved December 5. (Ed. Personality and Individual Differences. 913-921. Matto Grosso do Sul. R. T. 2007 from www. (2001).M. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. (1999). D. Meijman.
B. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.R. F. N.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 33. January 21). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. (2000). Raghunathan..
Waterman. T. W.
.B. M. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.
Watson. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.
Wállen Warner. and Åberg. Retrieved November 2.com/articles/waterman37. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Waller.backwoodshome.E. 50(4). Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. A. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. P. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.
Walker. 117128. and Little.. 427-433. (1998)..A.H.P. and McKenna. Stanton.. D. J. New Zealand.M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9. Wellington. and Carbonell Vaya E.pdf
Waylen. P. 2007 from http://www. L. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). 5(4). T. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. (2001). Personality and Individual Differences. M. (2002). 1-8). R. Backwoods Home Magazine. Amsterdam: Elsevier.F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. (2001). Retrieved December 15.html. and Zaidel. 438-447. (Eds. A.A. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Elliot. 123-142. Transportation and society.
Verwey. G. (1997).J.
Waller.theaa. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2006).T. Shope. In Rothengatter. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. H. M.S. and Mallinckrodt (2003). 2008 from http://www. 28. Heppner.F.P. 421-444. and Young. (2009. Policing and Educatino Conference 2.
An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.M. G.). In Yager.
Weissman. Ergonomics. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. G. R.J.
Wells. (2005). 8. Ceminsky. J. (ed. K.
Wilde. Elander. (Ed. R. 324. G.
Wheatley.S. 34. S. (1993). Advances in Paediatrics. G. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.
Wilde. 1149-1152.N. (1973). and Anderson.
Wilde.. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. 450-455.L. Wiliams. 15(11/12). (pp. G. American Journal of Psychiatry.
West. 441-468.J. Accident Prevention... 195.S. 271278. (2002). Target Risk.. (2007). Childhood accidents. (2002). (1961). Preventions of accidents in childhood. Risk Analysis. M. Hallberg. 135-154).
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. J. G.J.J. Guiling. G. E. 207-219. M. B. P. (1988). 130(4). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. 31. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.S. S.J. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. Toronto: PDE Publications.M (1956).) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. Fox.. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.J. M..S. (1982). University of Waterloo Press. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. G. G.W.
 Wheatley. 209-225. D.S. 2. Snow. G.
Wilde.. In Halsey.
Wells-Parker. (1994). 1116-1121. (1984). and French. and Klerman. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
. British Journal of Psychology. Mild social deviance. Dunaway.
Wilde. 84. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S.
. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.
Wood. Campo Grande. (1999). (2003). T.. Brazil.S. J. 557-567. V.ictct. Flyte and Garner. (1994).
Williams. A. Boston: Pearson. 807-811. (2001).R.F. Welsh. (2003). Matto Grosso do Sul.E. Retrieved March 31. A. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. Mastering the World of Psychology. J. 6(2). Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Wood.G..G. M. (2003). and Poythress.K.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Williamson. 1. D. J. March 20-22.B. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.Y. 26(6). 398-403. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. N. Cascardi.) Contemporary Ergonomics. and Hartman. Applied Ergonomics. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. and Boyd. (2000). The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. International Social Science Journal. 2007 from http:www. and Well. Space and Culture.. 303346.J.
Williams. Gavin. 31.A. 110-131. In Hanson.
Williamson..C. M.F. Journal of Safety Research. Countries and Their Cultures. 8. (2008).
Williams. A. and Shabanova.I. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.. N. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. (2004).
Williams. J. New York: Taylor & Francis. Psychological Assessment. Boyd. S. Lenard. 99-109. M. T. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. 34(5).
Wilson. 55(175). E. T. by age and gender. 527-531.
. Responsibility of drivers. (1996). L. S.
(2000). 1314-1330. Geneva. Report of an Advisory Group. L. N.
.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
Yergil. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. (2005). . (2007).
Yaapar. theatre and tourism. Ergonomics.A. Head tilt during driving. 42(5). D.C.S. G. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. Asian Journal of Social Science. (1999). Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. 487-503). and Chaffin. and Harris.
Zikovitz. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. M. Islam. 118. 740-746. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. 33(3). Ergonomics. X. Ergonomics. 473-485. and Stanton. 46-58. (2005). 43(9). D. In Underwood. S. (Ed.
World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Country reports.R. 50(1). Technical Report Series No. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier
World Health Organization [WHO] (2004).
the brake line pressure is relates. to the individual” (Brown &
Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. differential accident involvement). the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. allowing the wheel to turn. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. ABS ensures that. or benefits. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. Immediately after releasing the pressure. As a result. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. on most surface types. presumably because of personality factors. (see also. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols:
ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control
Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.
It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. (see also. risk homeostasis theory.
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. proximal variable. 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. (see also. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. (see also. black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (see also. McKenna of the University of Reading. including driver behaviour. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. 2004. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. time of week and. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. characteristics of road users. task capability theory) . distal variable. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. Also referred to as risk compensation. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. it refers to a combination of circumstances. black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis.Noy. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. where possible.
. p. rather than a theory. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. road and traffic conditions. In the present research. 25). The central idea is that.
bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. self-concept.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. 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).S. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). interests. William Haddon Jr. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. 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. Department of Transportation. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. selfefficacy and self-esteem. 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.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. In traffic psychology. in-crash. intelligence. accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. (see also. ability.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. motivation. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). (see also.. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. values. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells.
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. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. aptitudes. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. not as a unidimensional. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.
333-334). motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. For the purposes of the present research. as expressed by Raymond Cattell.
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. 1985. 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”. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails.
Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. mobile construction equipment or platforms. That is. most usually on roads. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. trucks (lorries).
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. the individual differences approach. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. motorised bicycles. conversely. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. the ego and the superego. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.S. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
. including life goals” (Chaplin. and buses. Wilde. Included in this term are walking. motor vehicles included automobiles. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. For the purposes of the present research. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. motorcycles. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. p.
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.
Private speech: see self-talk. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. bicycling.
signage. tunnels. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. draining system. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. 35). A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. p. including the network.
Road safety engineering: “a process.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Within the context of this research. (see also. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. at both conscious and unconscious levels. overpasses. 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. target risk. zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. parking spaces.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. 1996.” (Ogden. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. bridges.
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. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. archways and footpaths. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. behavioural adaptation.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. stopping places.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. but only
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. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour).when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. According to Wilde (1994). risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. (see also. remains constant at the target level.
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. theory of reasoned action. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. According to RHT proponents. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). 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.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. which are the best predictors of behaviour. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. behaviour control) (see also. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. 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. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. theory of planned behavriour)
. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). On dry roads. (see also.
The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. In the present research. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. risk homeostasis theory)
. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. coordinating. from its outset. road engineering.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. that share the same road infrastructure. comfort. motorised and non-motorised. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. management science and economics. community planning. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. behavioural adaptation. time. convenience and economy. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity.Traffic management: planning. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. ergonomics. (see also.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales
TX 78259 USA
http://pearsonassess. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.eng. San Antonio.html
. 1993). Beck & Steer. Buss & Warren.wpspublish. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.edu/~csp/csp. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.S.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. CA 90025 USA
http://portal. Brace & Company). 19500 Bulverde Road.hawaii. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. C. Papacostas & Synodinos.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Hawaii 96822 USA
http://www. 2000).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.
Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA
www. Crowson.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. C.ukans. Snyder.
.R. Houston.psych. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.edu/hope.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF)
g. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. _________. We are not asking for your name. 1.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 -.. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. please answer the following questions: 2. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4.what manufacturer & model (e. Most of the time when you travel. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never
. _________. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.g. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.
sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. most of the time ___ no
11. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. When you want to use a motorcycle.8. 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:__________________________________________ )
. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ 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
12. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female
17. Within the last twelve months. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that 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. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. but no injuries? If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.