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

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

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

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

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

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

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

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

iv

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

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

v

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

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

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

vi

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

Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. BIT. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. As reported in previous studies. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. As hypothesised. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. Results indicated that. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Among distal variables. viii . 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. The role of the proximal variable. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. as well. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship.

2.3 ix .2.2 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1 1.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 and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.4.2.2.3.3.1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 1.3 1.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.4 1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.3.2.3.1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 Concepts.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.4 Risk Theories 2.3. Theories and Models 2.3.5 1.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2.6 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.

4.4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.7.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3.2.2.2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.5.9.2 Gender 2.1.3.4.6 2.2.3 Locus of Control 3.1.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2.4 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.5 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.2.6.3.4 Hopelessness 3.1.1.5.3.5.5.1 Age 2.5.4.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.5.2.2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.3.3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.5.3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.4.4.1 Demographic Variables 2.4.3.3.5.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3.1 Statistical Models 2.4.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.3 Ethnicity 2.1 Experience 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5.2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Process Models 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.1.3.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1.2.6.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Hopelessness 2.5.5.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.3.1 Locus of Control 2.2.2.5.

3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.3.7.7.2.2 Study 1B 3.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.4 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.6.7.5.3 Study 1C 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2 Research Instruments 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2.5. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.5.7.5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5.7.7.2.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.7.5.2.1 Study 1A 3.6.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.5 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .2.2.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.5.1 The Sample 3.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.7.2.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.3.7.7.7.7.3 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.2.3.3.7 3.3.2.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.7.2.4 Study 2 3.

6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.12.2.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.5.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2.6 xii .4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.3.1.6.6.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.3.6.3.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.12.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.3 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.1 Age.6.1.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.5.2.2.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.4 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.5.1.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.1.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.2.6.2 4.6.

3.1 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.4 5.7.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 5.6.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.5.5.1 Study 1C 4.7 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.9.7.8.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.9.7.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.6.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.5.5.4.8.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.5 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.5.6 xiii .4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.8.3.5.8 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.2 Study 2 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.9.4.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.6.3.6.

5.4.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .4.4.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7.3 Education 5.1 Theory vs.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.7.6.2 Engineering Interventions 5.3 Driver Selection.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.4.7.7 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.

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.1 3.4 115 117 118 119 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.8 111 121 121 122 4.3 3.3 114 4.5 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.10 4.3 3.5 4.LIST OF TABLES No.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.6 4.9 4.11 xv . 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. Table Page 2.4 3.2 4.7 4.2 3.1 4.1 2.

Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.14 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.21 135 4.25 138 4.27 4.24 137 4.16 128 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.17 129 4.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.19 133 4.23 136 4.29 xvi .26 138 139 144 145 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.22 136 4.20 134 4.28 4.13 4.

3 5.5 209 225 5.4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.2 5.36 4.1 199 206 207 5.33 4.37 4.35 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.41 175 5.32 4.4 208 5.6 xvii .30 4.31 4.39 4.34 4.

7 2. 2. Hatakka. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 4.3 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.9 59 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 148 xviii . 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.LIST OF FIGURES No. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 4.4 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.2 147 148 4.3 3. 1996.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.6 2.2 2.1 2.1 3. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 4.2 3.

10 4.8 4.13 xix .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 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.12 4.5 4.

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

g. 2000). Stanton & Pinto. Theeuwes. Mohan & Hyder. 2001. judgement. 1999). Consistently over the years. Furuichi & Kadoma. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 2006. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. cognitive (Vaa. Verwey. Iwasaki. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. policy-makers.. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Graham. 1996. 2001). road. Even after decades of study. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Peters & Peters. 2004).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. such as Malaysia.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. for instance. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. perceptual (Hong. commented that. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. 2002. 2007. Olson. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. Green. Mills & Vavrik. 2002). 2007.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Trick. Scurfield. anticipation. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Sleet. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e.g. including the 1 . Enns. 2000. 2000). much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 2004) have been studied extensively. state of mind and physical well-being.. 11). Ogden. 2004). Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Sabey (1999).

252 accidents in 2006 and over 6.112).790. The chapter 1. 2002. There was a total of 341. 1989). 2003). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used.332 drivers and 15. 2005). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 21). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. including the study of a large number of variables. 1983). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. McKenna. 2 . 2004. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. “the literature on personality has a long history. locus of control. However. 2007). A total of 10.roadway. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. p. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.351. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. According to Dewar (2002b).

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

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

Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. By focusing on not only demographic. injuries and deaths. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. p. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. gender and ethnicity. 9). psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. but also on their interactions. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. 5 . this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. (c) driver locus of control. (b) driving experience. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. The specific purpose of this thesis is to further knowledge about drivers’ behaviour in traffic by applying Sümer’s (2003) construct of a conceptual mediated model. (e) driver aggression. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 1. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. “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. situated as proximal variables. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. 2005. (d) driver hopelessness.

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

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

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

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

Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. The relationship between the manner 10 . Boyce & Geller. Are the attitudes. Baxter & Campbell. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. Katila & Laapotti. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. 2002. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Stradling. 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. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. The present research. Finally. as well. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Manstead. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. However. while recognising the distinction. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Keskinen. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. 1990). at least to a certain extent. 1997). 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed.

in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .

2005). “impatient”. 2007). “friendly”. 2005). economic expansion. 1989). 2006). there were 341. they indicated “angry”. in order of frequency. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2007). 2005). A developing country in Southeast Asia.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. inconsiderate and aggressive. In newspaper reports. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. These are thought to have contributed. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. industrialisation and motorisation. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. “patient”. 2007). to a rapid increase 12 . Recently. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. “peaceful”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2007). the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 2003). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. “reckless”. 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. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. Over 6. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated.1.1 2. “bullies” and “selfish”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. in aggregate.

98 deaths per 10. Subramaniam & Law. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. 2003.425 2003 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.012 19.000 vehicles in 2006.20 deaths per 10. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.815 2005 328.287 in 2006.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.286 9.304 in 1994 to 6.415 52.741 38. Radin Umar. This suggests that studies.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Abdul Rahman. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 2005).395 2006 6. Mohd Zulkiflee. 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.645 54.2). Table 2. Generally. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.417 47.218 2005 6.7111 2003 298. 2005).040 2004 6. & Wong.653 2004 326.228 9. from 189.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.000 vehicles (Law.425 5.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. In Malaysia.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Studies 13 .287 9. in Malaysia.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Table 2.264 2006 341. 2005).885 35.091 37. 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.236 49. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.200 9. 2007).552 37.891 8.

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. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.81 2.67 billion.15 3.40 1.26 463 2.469 15.4 billion to RM5.947 10.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.23 2.72 554 2.48 323 1.620 7.97 1.22 150 0. Table 2.50 979 4.81 3.038 13.049 15.431 7. 2006).80 203 0.68 128 0.086 9.378 11.7 billion.205 11.309 10.65 2.10 3.61 99 0.921 100 20.15 43 0.65 121 0.08 585 2.005 15.94 625 3.64 135 0.82 1.29 2.29 708 3.08 1.178 15.92 2.21 3.92 1. 2005).54 708 3.07 2.025 9.37 337 1.08 541 2. 2003).416 6.48 105 0.08 2.94 1. 2001).31 3.84 1.56 3.034 4.315 17.90 159 0.418 100 19.27 458 2.99 164 0.820 13.45 30 0.11 2.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.953 17.05 2.997 14.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.49 450 2. 14 .389 6. 2001.94 2.85 2.41 302 1. in 1999 alone.07 2.023 5. and particularly among younger drivers.551 12.709 8. It has been reported that. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. general insurers paid RM1.91 984 4. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.81 1.16 90 0.216 10.47 280 1. Palamara.803 9.341 12.76 22.06 608 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.67 206 0.71 543 2.68 3.05 1.05 2.15 572 2.593 11.110 10.448 17.77 3.85 147 0.180 10.63 160 0. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. or an average of RM4.967 100 19. 2002. Morrison & Ryan. or about 2.

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

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

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

the factor that made the high speeds possible. generalising to all driving environments and situations. since 1994. 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. According to Williamson. however. He argued that. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error. This. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 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. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 121-122). 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. 1996). he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 110).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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 18 . these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. The very monotony of the road surface. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. resulted in a myriad of problems.122). they are accident prone. has linked peninsular communities. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p.

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

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

2002. Wagenaar & van Koppen. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. the lack of replication of many studies. 2003). 2. Underwood & Milton. 1997a). 2005).2. 482). the use of inconsistent crash definitions. the picture that emerges is indeed grave.2. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 2003). 21 . 1993). 1996. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. information processing. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1961.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. Preston & Harris. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah.2. The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. there has been an interest in driver personality. Nevertheless. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 321).

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

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

2001).3. 1997. 2. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. particularly the notions of mental load. error and cognitive modelling. Increasingly. Stanton & Young.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 26). predict and modify road user behaviour. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Neerincx & Schriebers. 2006. 2004). which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. though.3 2. Jannssen.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Walker. “This school of though. Noy. Studies of human factors engineering of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. 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. 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.

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

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

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

finding. just as one can meaure height. weight and perhaps even intelligence. p. p. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 .1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin.152).3. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. 1984). λ. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. 1993. In 1917. in certain cases. 290). West & French. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. 1920). According to Haight (2004). but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. occupational and otherwise. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. personality. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. “irrespective of environment. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. but persists today. If each individual has a unique λ-value. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. his or her accident proneness.3. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. 2. sensori-motor skill. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. during and following the war years. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. 1962. found first that the frequency of accidents. Research by board statisticians. the average number of accidents.

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

it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. 8-9). Stolk. sports and family settings. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. pp. So. roadway. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. The concept itself is ill-defined. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. 1993). 562). moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . therefore. Visser. 1980.sports. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. Pijl. Ultimately.3.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 1998). 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. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.05. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 2.

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. following their review of the literature. experience more accidents than others. 2. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. The introduction of divided highways. A driver who enters a construction zone. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. in a study of driving on icy roads. For example. 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. large earth-moving 31 .4. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. albeit not crash occurrence. 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. That is. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. substantially. However. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.3. 2000).. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. crash barriers. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.accident proneness (Chmiel. Elander et al. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. in fact. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. Wilde (1982. 2.3.

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

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

is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 81). 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. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 1987. 26). Summala. O’Neill and Williams (1998).(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. 92). At this point. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 2.3. after a similar review. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process.4. 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. and 34 . 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. In other words. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 2004. Rather. p. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. In addition. or expecting. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. for example.

Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. age and social variables. and specific driver actions. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. Van der Hulst. A large number of studies show that external motives. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Gregersen. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. 35 . 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Meijman & Roghengatter. Hataaka. Summala (1996. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. as a result. 1999). their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. Glad & Hernetkoskis. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. 1996. Reeder et al. On the other hand. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS).1). 2.5 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. 2002. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. 1998. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions.3.learn how to respond safety to. much of which arises from personality. such as time pressure. for instance. Keskinen.

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. 1996) Keskinen et al. but that is not 36 . seemingly concurrently. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. 15). criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. a property absent within the task cube concept. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. 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. for example. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.

However. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 252). 2000) 37 . affective states)..sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories.3. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 1982. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Most of the time. Fuller (2000. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. high speeds. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.g. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1). this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 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. 2.

Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 1985. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.6. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.3. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. and Keskinen et al. 2004. emotional state.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. time pressure). (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 1991). Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. Since 1985.3. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 1985. for the most part. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. 2.1 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. p. Generally. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver 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.Fuller’s theory has. 40). however. According to the TRA. 126). the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Fishbein & Ajzen. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Two limitations have been noted. objects. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.

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

1989) Within the theory. 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. 40 . to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. greater perceived control (i. In one study. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. when intention is held constant. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 2002. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. p.. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. 2003). or sense of self-efficacy. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 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. 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. Further. 253). PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.e.

Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. Attitude toward speeding. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . 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.1. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.2). 2. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. Similar to later findings by Law et al. based on data extracted from police record forms.4 2. 2002). 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. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. but after controlling for distance travelled. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.4. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.2. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Austin and Carson (2002). they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.In another study. for instance. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. vehicles. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. 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.

Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.2..2 Process Models 2.4. 1998. the vehicle (V). within specific situational contexts. 2000). Mahasakpan. E and especially H factors. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4.g. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. Koonchote & Tantiratna. More recently. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Richardson & Downe. Law. 1999).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). Seow & Lim. Nguntra.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Swaddiwudhipong.4). 2. the road (R) and the environment (E).locations and settings (e. however. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1997) 42 . R. 1994). 1997. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.

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

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

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

(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. the impact of a moderator (path b). and the interaction or product of these two (path c). there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. or dependent.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.7): the impact of a predictor. 46 . or independent variable (path a). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. variable (see Figure 2. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. 2003). 1986). a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. or testing the moderating effect.

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

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

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

Type A. Yet. Weinstein & Solomon. Retting..5. Odero et al. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. 1995).g.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.8).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. Campbell & Williams. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.5. 2003). 2003.1. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.Downe (2007). 2007) 2. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. Distal factors Safety interventions  knowledge transfer  ergonomic design  safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate  worker attitude toward safe work  perceived management priority  employee empowerment and control over safety  post-injury administration  return-to-work policies  operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts  lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output  reduced accident severity  reduced risk assessment  standards compliance  increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables     locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e. 1997. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Williams & Shabanova... 2002.5 2. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.g.

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

age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). In a nation-wide survey of American teens. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. Stevenson et al. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression.39). risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Vissers & Jessurun. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. In the present study. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. on crash and injury occurrence. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. Similarly. and that young drivers. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. 2007). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. Justification of age-related hypotheses. 52 . it was hypothesised in the present study that. as age decreased. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. 1999. 2002). Ulleberg. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. indirectly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for instance. Rothengatter. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . In individual differences research. Duncan & Brown. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. Pelz & Schuman. Generally. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. the miles they drive. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. McKenna. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Second. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Elander et al. 2001. 1991). 1984).5.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed.2. it is accepted that the more one travels. and type of route where. First. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. 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. Wilde. 1995. 282). 2002a). on crash and injury occurrence. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 2. the concept is much less well developed. 1993).. indirectly. 1986. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1984. driving occurs (Dewar. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 1971). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).

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

1990). Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. she separated the externality dimension into two. or internals. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 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. 15). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 1991.3.5. or externals . people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 2006.3. Levenson (1975. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.5.1 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. 1975. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.1. Holder & Levi. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. Hyman. 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. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.5. 63 . Stanley & Burrows.g. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. and second. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.. 1999).10). 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. In contrast.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 Locus of Control 2.

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

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

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

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

Chinese of Malay extraction. At the same time. In very early research. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Cheung. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. only Cheung. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. skill and ability. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 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. Chinese and Indian populations. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. 68 . 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. To the author’s knowledge. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. 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.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. This was very true for the locus of control variable. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. all internal characteristics.

Özkan & Lajunen. on crash and injury occurrence. Cases usually 69 . Beresford & Neilly. Fox & Klerman. 1991. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk.3. 2007. Montag & Comrey.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. et al.5. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Weissman. 1973). Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 1987. Finally. Niméus. 1975. 1997. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. 2007). Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. McMillan. (2003). 1995. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. indirectly. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 2. Gilbody. without objective basis. 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. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Kovacs and Weissman. 2005). In the present study. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Sinha & Watson. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. First. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 1975).

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

Wells-Parker et al.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. physiological arousal. Tzamalouka. Mizell. Deffenbacher. Chapman. 71 . and deindividuation. learned disinhibitory cues. 2000.5. Bakou. 2006).3. Filetti. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Barton and Malta. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 2003. Wright & Crundall. 1999. learned cognitive scripts. Lynch & Oetting. 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. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. In a largely unrelated study. including subjective feelings of stress. 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. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue.3 Aggression Since the 1980s.. 2002. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2002). 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. Demakakos. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Malta & Blanchard. Koumaki. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Chliaoutaks. Richards. 2. & Darviri. Underwood. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 2000.

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

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

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

as measured by the student version of the SJAS. ethnicity. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Miles and Johnson (2003). Of the four BIT factors. Glass. 1977). In a subsequent study. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. 2. At the same time. then use of the Type A/B 75 . namely “externally-focused frustration”. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes). driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results.6. 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. Gender. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. on the other hand.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.

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

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

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

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

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

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

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

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

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

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

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

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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

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

3.2.1

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

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

3.2.2

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

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

3.2.3

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

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

84

1994).each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. but not chance. Lester and Trexler (1974). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 1999).2. cognitive. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. overlapping and ambiguous. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . For each of the five studies undertaken. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.2.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. affective. 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. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). 3. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. In the present research. 3. a separate score for internality (I). a thought process that expects nothing. Weissman. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. 25). For the purposes of the present research. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.

taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. were also investigated. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Deffenbacher. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). through fighting. 2003. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. and. Lynch & Morris.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). 1996). expressed through the presence of irritability. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al.2. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. hitting or interpersonal violence. In the present research. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Vallières. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 .expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. Oetting. frustration. Bergeron & Vallerand. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. social alienation and paranoia. 2005). 3. 1957. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Specifically.

being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . characterised by excessive impatience. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. hit or kill another individual.. and.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). (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.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. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others.2. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. competitiveness. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.. 1998). hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. the BIT score.g. frequent lane changing. 3. not allowing others to merge or overtake.

them (e. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.. 3. Then.3 3. 88 . and. while driving. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. Then.2. to the extent of inattention conditions. travel frequency. three demographic variables (driver age. 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.2. in Study 1A.g. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. 3. In the resulting measure of this variable.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.3. the influence of driving experience. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.

3. In this study. Then.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . three demographic variables (driver age.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. Figure 3. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. travel frequency. travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. 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. Figure 3. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.3. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. In Study 1B. Then. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Finally. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. In this study. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. Finally.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. 3. hopelessness.

Figure 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. and (b) taxi experience. Then.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. First. This was justified for three reasons.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 3. 3.3. 90 . Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. Finally.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the influence of experience. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Then. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In Study 3. In Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.

1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury 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.2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1.2.1. Second. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: 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. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. Third. 3.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.2.2.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .

3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3.3.2.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: 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 H4.1: Gender 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: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.Table 3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2.2.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.

1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.Table 3.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. within a 14-month period. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .5 3. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.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. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.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: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. 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. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. using the same procedures as in Study 1.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.3: 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 H13.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.5.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.

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

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

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

3. Table 3.3).” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Beck et al. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. or 0. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.2. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”.” “If I’m angry enough. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.” 97 . verbal aggression. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe 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. Of the 20 true-false statements. 3. I may mess up someone’s work. 1996). 2005.” “When people annoy me. 1974). if endorsed. and five subscales measure physical aggression. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 1993. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. I may tell them what I think of them.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. 1982. anger.” “I get into fights more than most people. Durham. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.3 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. I might give him or her the silent treatment.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.5. Tanaka et al. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “When someone really irritates me.5.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. if not. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.2.

(1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. . 5 = “all the time”). 3. Cascardi & Pythress.91 for physical aggression. Williams. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Table 3. 1996).4). 1997. gender.” 3. 2000). derogation of others and revenge respectively. 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. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .5.2.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. with coefficient alpha values of .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.92. age. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Three factors – physical aggression. 1997.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.2.5. 98 .71 to .88 and . Boyd. Shapiro. Snyder et al.” “I want to get back at this person.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.

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

Data collection took place in taxicabs. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. BIT. aged 22 to 24 years. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. rel. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Levenson Locus of Control scale. 3. 2004). Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. rel. analyses of variance (ANOVA). 100 .5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 8. At initial contact.6. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. as well. Over the course of the trip. AQ and Levenson scales.5.2 Study 3 For study 3. Independent-sample t-tests. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. Two to four times daily. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.3. 2002). 13. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. For safety reasons. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. four female final-year undergraduate students.0. The PIF was always administered first. research assistants verbally administered the PIF.

1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: 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: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .Table 3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.

1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.Table 3.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.3: 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 H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: The higher the Internality.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the higher the BIT level H8.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.

7. locus of control. 3. When significant differences were observed.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. hopelessness. 2000). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. In the present study. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. locus of control.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. In the present research. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. hopelessness. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. 103 .2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.7.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.

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

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

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

the normed fit index (NFI). Thus. However. 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). Hair et al. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. an insignificant p-value is expected. 2006).00 in which values greater than .0. 112). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 3.. one incremental index. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).1 Chi-Square (χ2). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.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.7. 1998). the higher the probability associated with χ2. 2006). 1998.7.7. pp. 3.7. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 107 . an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). the ratio indicates a good fit. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).7.validation index (ECVI). p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. The 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. and a measure of parsimony fit.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model.10 indicate poor fit.

3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.7. 2006). The index ranges between zero and 1. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00 being indicative of good fit.7. an RMR greater than .00. Tanaka & Huba..5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 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. 108 .7.00.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. 3.00 with value more than . but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. Values range from zero to 1.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.00 with value closes to 1. Thus. Bentler & Bonnet. 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. with higher values indicating better fit.00.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.7. The index can range from zero to 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7. 3.

1994).7. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 2006). 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. 3. James.7..00. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. considering its fit relative to its complexity. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. Mulaik & Brett. Values range between zero and 1. p. Although values range from zero to 1. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. In such cases.. 2006. Browne & Cudeck.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. in this case. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.3. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. 109 .00. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.7. 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.7. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. 750). It should be noted that. Like other parsimony fit indices.

it is said to be positively skewed. In this case. If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. 2000). the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. p.3. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. 3. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 1976.7. If the opposite holds. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 37). 1976).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. 1956).7. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.05. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. in this case. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.

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

6% 82 15.4% 146 14.6% 12.5% 6.9% Total 441 100% 45.9% 14.1 Description of the Samples Age.1 4. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1. with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.55).5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.6% 15.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. 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. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.3% 8. Then.4% 269 27.1% 562 57. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. Table 4.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1).5% 27. 4. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1% 121 22.4% 333 62. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33.9% 23. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% 57. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.1% 34.1% 536 100% 54.

302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 19.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.01 years (SD = 1.53. In Study 2. In Study 1A.35. range from 18 to 27). followed by Malay (27.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 113 .43 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 1C.63.89 years (SD = 1. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. In Study 1B. range from 18 to 29). Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. range of 18 to 26). Thus.68.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 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. range from 18 to 25).5 per cent).25 years (SD = 1. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. In Study 3. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 20.9 per cent). with a mean age of 20.

Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.65.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . 1. Johor or Perak made up 53.5 114 .19 S. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.1 6.89 20.9 2.7 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. SD = standard deviation 4.2.35 1.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.63 11. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 7.43 19.3). range from 23 to 73).2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.25 43.01 20. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.4% of the sample.D.5 8.3% of the sample. Kuala Lumpur.1.3 11. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.68 1. Table 4.2: Age.19 years (SD = 11. The mean age was 43. Table 4.53 1.

4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.1% of the sample.6 100 4.9% of the sample.1 9.6 1.0 10.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.7 3.9 0.0 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.2 2.7 11.8 5.8 9.7 100 4.1. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.2 3.8 11.5 1.4 0.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. Table 4.1. As the sample was 115 .2 17. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.5 14.6 2.4 4.4).3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.9 7.

1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. 1978). 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. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 4.2. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 116 .5). 2000). This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.2 4. In the present research. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.

707 .740 .711 .904 .733 .720 .782 .738 .817 .715 .742 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.824 .774 .720 .Table 4.747 .714 .740 .808 .735 .887 .783 .906 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .737 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .830 .754 .808 .783 .741 .756 .881 α .701 .727 .782 .734 .730 .749 .784 .811 .702 .738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .786 .910 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .703 .810 .772 α .890 .739 .827 .781 .727 .715 .798 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .788 .718 .

we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.10 indicate a mediocre fit.804 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.05 indicate good fit.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A . 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.807 .80. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 1998.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 118 .807 Study 1B . depending on which is used (Byrne.801 .876 .805 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. 1998).953 . Byrne.800 .903 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.916 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. only Form A was used. In Study 3. 1985).2. 1998).08 to . more than . values ranging from .857 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.929 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research.804 Study 1C .806 .802 4.958 . The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.4. RMSEA values less than . and those greater than . 205).804 .2.6.808 Study 2 .811 .80 or above). Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.803 . Table 4. 1998).

00 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 1.99 .00 1.00 1. externally-focused frustration. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .97 .95 1.047 .00.00 1.074 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.97 1.92 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.077 .91 .91 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .000 .089 .96 . and destination-activity orientation.92 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.024 .98 1.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 .96 1.061 .00 1.3.000 .00 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 1.98 .96 .7. If the value of CFI exceeds .98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.000 .00 .00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .93 .00 (the closer to 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. indicating good fits.97 1.00 .00 .000 .99 . it is possible to have negative GFI. 1992).90.00 .00 1.2.00 .90.99 .00 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .097 . freeway urgency.000 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.000 .097 .000 . As shown in Table 4.100.048 .92 .96 .98 . A third statistic. 4. Table 4.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .99 .070 .098 .054 .99 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.

93 .97 .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).93 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). indicating good fits (See Table 4.00 .95 1. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.000 .063 .92 .92 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .058 .93 .96 . Table 4.8. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.92 .97 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.3. anger (ANG).083 .085 .91 .93 .96 .052 .100.085 .91 . RMSEA values were less than .096 .059 .91 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 .2.081 .96 .98 .96 .4.90. verbal aggression (VER).030 .93 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.3.98 .091 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.95 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.073 .99 .081 .2.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .93 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).99 .071 .95 .

100.97 . derogation of others and revenge.088 .90.081 .089 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.10).081 .92 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).058 .96 .94 .047 .055 .025 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.096 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 .088 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 .97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .095 .97 .97 .98 . Table 4. Table 4.97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .90.97 .098 . RMSEA values were less than .95 .95 .100.070 .97 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.073 .98 .9). CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.090 .98 . indicating good fit (see Table 4. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .98 .98 .083 .2.098 .98 .97 .93 .97 .98 .94 .070 .98 .98 .3. RMSEA values were less than .92 .92 .97 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.(IND).

120) 1.064(.140) -.356 (.226 (.962 (.140) .410(. 2005.246(.010 (.403(.091(..094 (.428) .192(.4.256 (.805(.241(.297(. 1997).453(.203(.037(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) .280) -.022 (.154(.140) .107 (.297(.204(. Table 4.140) -.280) -.511(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.126(.260) .099) 1.353(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.280) -.191) 1.409(.280) -. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.140) -.280) .280) .280) .140) -.057) 1.140) .297 (.351 (.085) 1.379(.656(.106) 1.140) -.280) .020 (.280) .280) .091) 1.278(. In all cases.280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.560(.107) 1.140) -.3 Normality.052) 1.192) 1. 2006).920(.280) .183) 1.082 (.05).719(. Table 4.140) -.278(.332 (.146(.280) .085) 1.186) 1.280) -.408(.280) .140) -.195 (.080(.875(.091(.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .11: Normality Tests.085 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.582(.280) .069) 1.140) -.219 (.064(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.188(.179(.140) -.126(. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.331(.140) -.140) .102) 1.099(.140) .183) 1.409(.064) 1..239 (.140) .280) -.560(.280) -.099(.105 (.190) 1.034 (.140) .280) -.085 (.099) 1.280) -.280) .140) .179(.323 (.

300(.088 (.306) -.451(.210) .053(.360) .135) 1.113 (.153) 983(.360) .210) .120(.210) .147(.209(.366(.244(.940(.106 (.417) -.360) .153) .198(.153) .629(.210) .219) .306) -.962(.070 (.426) .852(.435) .051) .153) .884(.022 (.321) 1.267) .467(.219) .138(.247) .101) 1.417) -.210) -.276(.392(.359 (.306) -.277(.110 (.098) 1.210) -.210) .306) -.306) .099) 1.153) .053(.138) 1.354 (.153) .160 (.003 (.812(.147(.102) .007(.106(.423(.219) -.153) .210) .279 (.805 (.567(.024 (.142(.153) .128) .417) -.799(.994(.306) .359 (.098) 1.911 (305) 1.084) 1.006(.306) .719(.327 (.Table 4.153) .501(.210) -.306) -.271(.153) .973(306) .503(.317) 1.375) 1.106(.100) .847 (.417) -.497(.128 (.324(.293 (.001 (.972(.715(.022 (.435) -.366) 1.210) Study 2 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation Study 3 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 123 .952(.219) -.306) -.052) 1.062(.306) .130(.153) .153) .435) -.265) 1.962 (.913(.370(.153) -.417) .713(.435) -.219) .533) .919 (.959 (.417) -.417) -.360) -.978(.681(.256(.048(.417) -.469) 1.187) 1.807 (.417) -.219) .219) .435) -.104) 1.259) .362(.024 (.463(.306) .417) .159(.210) .567(.435) -.264) .157) .270) 1.156(.435) -.913 (.236(.247) 1.478(.841(.852(.443(.510) 1.266 (.195 (.414(.276 (.986 (.338 (.011 (.915(.417) .295(.153) .051) 1.219) -.052) 1.154) -.537(.297 (.822 (.979(.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.223 (.540(.131(.417) .435) -.153) -.057) 1.640(.030(.064) 1.210) .214) 1.948(.186(.

However.12. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and.3 per cent being hospitalised. Table 4.12.12: 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. column a).13). For motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. column c). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. column b).12. with 44. injury occurrence was much higher. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. 124 . if so.

involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 one crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.

Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. 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.4.17 shows means.5.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Study 1C. in Study 1B. Table 4.15 shows means. Study 1B. Also. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. crash occurrence and crash injury. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). 126 . All these correlations were significant (p<. and destination-activity orientation. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.05).16 shows means. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. freeway urgency. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. However. 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. externally-focused frustration.05). Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.

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.391** -.662** 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.57 4.396** .716** .58 .64 7.147* -.376** .22 3.476 .435** .513** .00 165.69 24.376** .44 4.3455 .482** .901** .147* .306** .278** .76 3.036 .442 1 -.371** .202** .201** .804** .280** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .340** .155** .818** 1 .553** -.2691 6.625** .247** .239** .231** .416** 1 .5 5.339** .388** .96 19.434** .544** -.533** .342** -.246** .942** 1 .186** .97 43.345** 1 -.D.191** .04 26.405** .88 7.152** .78 .562** -.52 34.218** .45 6.027 1 .749** .Table 4.15: Means.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .516** 1 -.316** .129* .381** .471** .211** .23 2.08 2.566** 1 -.209** 1 .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .

382** 1 -.213** .240** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.254** .84 5.172** .140* .45 5 87.669** 1 -.366** .505** .496** .380** .5695 .173* .516** .14 4.347** 1 -.523** .9 13 46.509** .55 9 21.418** .254** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .276** .414** .279** .41 3.331** .540** .378** .213** .462** .56 2 4.48 5.403** .013 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .341** .22 4.531** .268** .213** .3079 .369** .358** .779** 1 -.555** .520** .028 -.461** .16: Means.445** .463** .69 8.91 15 27.491** .66 3.587** 1 -.434** .275** .355** .85 9.697** 1 .515** .407** 1 -.162** .363** .150** .089 -.254** .00 14 19.176* .448** .9 12 71.380** .195** .964** 1 .103 -.286* .816** .334** .324** .762** .60 10 16.D.4624 1 -.271** .921** .731** .393** .337** .071 .294** 1 .039 .438** 1 .847** .028 .86 6.584** -.411** .481** .200** .067 -.272** .84 7.312** 1 -.310** .43 12.521** .331** .355** .172** .444** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.452** .159 -.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .342** .148* .157** .103 -.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 .401** .550** .319** .278** 1 -.408** .50 5.003 .5 6 17.542** .440**.842** 1 .855** .167** .225** .298** .343** .Table 4.443** .386** .376** .25 8 18.491** .586** .343** .178** .400** .355** .688**.518** .353** .236** .372** .9 28.48 3.97 4 4.763** .602** 1 .153** .53 19.82 7 13.335** .489**.514** .051 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.338** .4960 17 .06 3 2.147** .099 .430** .816** .

Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.31 3.216** .52 7.196** .37 6.502** .370** .311** .130** .448** .423** .390** .17 -.530** .246** .368** .224** .78 8.296** .343** .804** .81 5.069 .-181** .251** .110 .747** .202** .278** .49 6.7 28.212** .095 .97 -.D.31 -.191** .081 .895** 1 13 26.193**.Table 4.366** .298** .199** .306** .402** .181** .11 12.526** .395** 1 11 65.320** .150* .082 .259** .424** 1 12 18.484** .101**.356** .9 -.501 .241** .224**.17: Means.057 .270** .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 .345** .641** 1 4 4.210**.277**.476** .413** .70 3.357** .076 .268**.401** .261** .230 .422 -.69 -.286** .385** .229** .254** .131* .275** .307**.281** .18 -.075 .258** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .85 19.270** .348** 1 6 16.70 8.250** .592** .186** .349** 1 16 67.378** .364** .412** .735** .86 -.166** .404** .218** .508** .235** .263** .252** .302** .162**.588** 1 14 20.323** .139** .209** .64 -.516 .838** .016 .235** .203** .230** .80 17.354** 1 5 88.534** 1 18 19.141* .221** .294** .271** .402** .456** .158** .387** .109 .277** .383** .259** .89 5.174** .531** 1 10 16.506** .292** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .219** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .483** .095 .199**.305** .446** .310** .202** .222** .856** 1 17 43.306** .465** .120 .343** .338** .749** .051 .119* 1 21 .7 -.355** .545** .308** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.003 .8 -.281** .245** .296** .296** .862** .275** .518** .91 -.36 -.277** 1 8 19.422** 1 9 22.03 -.324** .221** .615** .481** .00 -.226** .58 9.314** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.210** .454** .379** .278** .109 .254** .191** 1 3 .565** .377** .038 .166** .167** .183** .150* .228** .189** .392** .192**.434** .183** .364**.185** .178** .304** .03 5.17 -.033 .451** .745** 1 7 13.38 5.98 4.264** .151* .05 -.183** .42 3.67 7.137* .340** .288** .313** .70 1 2 4.265** 1 19 25.148** .428** .241** .81 -.227** .228** .103** .367** .106 .192** .373** .292** .304** .151* .189** .230** .291** .9 -.725** .293** .342** .

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

880 .917 3.500** .165 .269** .614** .043 .485 11.314** .5738 8.76 48.630** .621 3.226** .4683 .580** 1 .334** .200* -.251** .876** .035 3.317** .325** .367** .50 73.06 20.55 175.409** .139 .111 -.48 5.233** .4966 1 .428** .025 -.240** .371** -.072 .201* .562** 1 .750** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .349** .192* -.Table 4.183* 1 .383** .028 1 .264** .14 27.6803 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .323 23. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Mean Distal Variables 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality-Powerful-Others (P) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.18: Means.150 -.66 1.941** 1 .415** .167 .182* -.232** .081 8.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .30 .290** .758** 1 .535** 1 .313** 1 .376** .291** .66 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.122 7.413** .374** .212* .418** .179 7.259** .413** 1 .219** .356** .D.

AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. Differing from Studies 1A. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1C and 2.4. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. As indicated in Table 4. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. standard deviations and relationships between distal. However. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.5. correlations between I and distal. 132 . In general. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4.19 shows means.19. 1B. In this study.

151 -.171 .19: Means.418** .234** .561** 1 .116 .Table 4.853** .15 32.43 8.152 .193* -.180** .072 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .08 15.622** .156 .65 75.109 -.178** .161 -.149 .74 15.240** .070 -.197* .117 .103 .114 .292** .177 1 .091 .99 10.172** .324** .092** .194* 1 .88 1 .2000 .225** .067 .020 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .D.4 5.112 -.236** .401** -.166 .807** .618** 1 .091 -.864** 1 .204* .240** .165 .10 1.443** 1 .11 15.121 .229** .255** .07 8.173* .095 .82 5.147** .82 11.35 11.45 19.117 .378** 1 .167** .254** -.150** .194* .276** .060 .275** .023 .588** 1 .54 11.3 6.060 -.271** .643** .816** .200* .0301 .06 2.528** 1 .257** .106 .235** .31 8.222* .120 .213** .338** 1 .028 .156 .721** .658** .013 .117 .32 3.263** .061 .636** .268** .218* .025 -.521** .153** 1 .121 .071 .12 4.576** .072 .289** 1 .032 1 .373** .286* 1 .454** .246** .182* -.235** .51 3.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .048 .05 3.245** .749** .872** .023 -.646** .149 . 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. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.84 2.030 .141 .404 .371** .128 .018 -.261** .42 66.148* .32 7.213** .17 20.13 3.040 .039 .604** .054 .

01 B=.01 B=.063. p<. Study 2: B=. Study 1C: B=. p<.238.080.01 B=.229.048. p<.172.01). p<. p<. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=. p<.3 inclusive.1.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.1. p<. freeway urgency.01. Table 4.1.01. p<.125. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.063. For the destination-activity factor. p<.095.01.146.01 and Study 3: B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.1).041. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.01 B=.20).4.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.01 134 .04.01 Study 1C B=. p<. These results supported H1.01 Study 3 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.117.01 B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 B=.278.180.1. These results supported H1.6. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. p<.090.120.01 B=. p<.095. H1.01 B=. p<.102.315.202. p<.135.1 through H1.4 was not supported. p<. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=.088 p<. 4. and externally-focused frustration. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.034. p<.

that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.074. p<.038. p<.01 B=.01 B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=. These results supported H1.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. p<.01 and Study 2: B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01.01).064.019.01. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 Study 1C B=.05 Study 1B B=.069.01 B=.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=. Study 1B: B=. 135 . p<. respectively).033 p<.01 B=.075 p<.118. p<.158.120.140. Table 4. p<. p<.087.059.2. Study 1C: B=. p<.165. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.22.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.091.6. p<. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.035. p<.23 and Table 4. Table 4.035.01 B=. p<. p<.054.01 B=.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.24.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.21). freeway urgency.095.

16 3.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.35 4.32 147.77 165.92 157.43 20.68 26.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.31 161.30 22.23: 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 4.25 5.82 33.88 28.73 170.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.98 171.35 24.06 19.98 33.41 167.03 25.77 8. * p<.82 168.56 175.60 185.15 161.32 28.35 33.05.89 21. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.44 178.35 155.29 21.64 27.48 171.64 26.184** 136 .074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.25 25.50 28.01.52 25.600** Table 4.

Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.00 16.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.12 161.88 167. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.01).12 154.00 14.73 24.01 14.06 160. * p<.01.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.14 15.05. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. On the other hand. about once every two weeks (p<.73 157.01).05).05). 137 .01).01).29 15. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.53 17.060** In Study 1A. 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<.Table 4. 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<.39 19.06 8.61 165. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01).77 16. In Study 1B.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<.52 3. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 1C.05).81 167. and those who almost never travelled (p<. In Study 2.25).

33 78.82 162. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. 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.50 184.25: 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<.62 10.63 1.50 24.05. * p<.60 72.74 77. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. In other words. N. N.01.S) Therefore.05.55 73.52 172. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.S.65 73.47 5.381 10.71 168.94 20.55 10. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.26).81 175.64 24.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182. Table 4. However.58 188.97 8.26: 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<.31 2.Table 4.68 20.316 1.437 (N.753* 38 48 27 20 77.01.27 14.920 (N.31 78.37 9. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.81 22.859 11. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .09 15.56 3. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. However.26 10.81 161.89 20.80 22. * p<.S.528** In Study 3.

driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. the lower was the total BIT score. however. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.been predicted by H2. 1B. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. ethnicity and age – were investigated. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. In Study 3. In this case.27). In Studies 1A. only H2. 1B. Again.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 139 . where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. 1C and 2.6.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. though.2.1 was confirmed. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. ANOVA results for age. In Study 2. For ethnicity. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.1 and H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 4. only H2. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.

p<.562.74. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. In all studies. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). Externality-Chance (C). post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.S.98.3 was not supported.S. Study 1C t=3. however.S. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.53. 1C and Study 2. H3.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. In Study 1C. In Study 1B. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=19.05.01 F=1.81.01 F=8. H3. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.1 and H3. p<. p<.12. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=9.01 F=.00.05 F=11. N.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.99.6.Table 4.01 F=1. t(250) = 2.01 F=2.05 F=4. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. p<. p<.01).66. Therefore. 4. male 140 .S.9.05).2 was confirmed.2 were confirmed. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. In Study 3.44. N.62. In Study 1A and Study 2. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.68. N.56. N. p<. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. Study 1B t=2. p<. p<.05. p<. In Study 1B.05).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. Study 2 t=3. N.

p<. 299) = 5.01). In Study 2. p<.462.01 respectively).05. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 119) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 1C.05). 298) = 3. p<.476. F(2. p<.05. p<.041.01 respectively. p<.05 and F(2.941.05 and F(2. F(2. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. t(120) = 2. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. F(2.05 and p<. 298) = 3.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. F(2. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. 298) = 6.566.05). Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. p<. 249) = 3. t(299) = 2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. In Study 1A. p<.503. In Study 1B. 141 .527. 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. 299) = 3. E and P scores. For Studies 1A. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.490. In Study 1C.01).370.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.05 respectively. 1B.01.05 respectively.

it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. H5. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. p<. so H4.2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. t(120) = 2.3 were supported. in Study 2. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. In addition. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1.2 and H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. 4. H4.1 and H5.3. Therefore. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.2. H4. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.3 was supported.01). 142 .2.2 and H4. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.079. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. were supported. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.3 were not supported.2.3. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.3.6. H5.1.3. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.1. that age influences hopelessness. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.Therefore. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. 1B or 1C. However.05. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. H4. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.1.

no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 respectively). that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.371.01 and B = .01. p<. H6.306.254. Therefore. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . In Study 2. p<.2 and H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. p<. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. In Study 1C. were supported. 4. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.341.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness.01.01 and B = . with the sample of motorcycle drivers.28).01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .312. p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. respectively). I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<.3.1. 143 . that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.4. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. respectively). respectively).342. p<. In Study 1B.354. H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . was not supported. H6.6.239. p<. p<.01 and (B = .186.2 and H6. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.290.1.01.6.01 and B = .254. were supported.3. p<. H6.

p<.247. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.232.2. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.153. H7. p<. p<. N.Table 4. H7.280.278.151.349. In Study 2. p<. 1C and 2. externally-focused frustration (B = .191. 144 .01 B=. In Study 1C.01 B=.415.01 B=.01).05) but not for freeway urgency.287.157. p<.191. p<.01 B=.01).317.099.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 In Study 1A. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.418.01 Study 1B B=. p<. Therefore. p<.01 B=. p<. p<. was supported in Studies 1A. p<. p<.05).1.01). p<. p<.151.200.S. p<.415.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.275. H7.05). externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .317.247.254.01).288. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.05). p<.3 and H7. p<. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<.280.141. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.275. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.232.05 Study 2 B=.05 Study 1C B=. freeway urgency (B = .05 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01 B=.01 B=.254. externally-focused frustration (B = .151.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.157.01).141.287. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.4.153.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores.01). p<. B=. In Study 1B.01 B=. freeway urgency (B =. freeway urgency (B = .28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01).349.01 B=.05 B=.

2 and H8. p<.01 B=-.4.S.339.6. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. p<. H8. that the higher the subscale score for I. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. With regard to H8. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.29).3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=-. p<.297. B=.05 B=.1.178. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.077. but not H8. p<. N. Therefore.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. p<.01 B=.3. H8. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.1.006.229.239.01 B=. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.336. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.1. 145 .753. H8.01 B=-. With regard to H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.388.3. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<.01 B=.01 B=.168. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=.01 B=.208. N.2.1 and H8. p<. Table 4. N.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.2. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. p<.01 B=-. B=.625. p<.315.8 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. p<. where only H8. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.044.01 B=.S.

581. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.1). it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.704.272. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<.1). 146 .710.909.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.2). results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. F=7.01 and F=8.01 (see Figure 4. p<.01 respectively (see Figure 4. F=4.01 (see Figure 4. p<. Further. 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. In Study 1C. =8.05. F=4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.

R2=.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.3). 147 . in Study 2.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 66. Kurtosis=-. First. p<.00 68.033.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.05. B = .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. 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. F=4. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. However.6. p<. 1B and 1C. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.034.327. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. multiple regression showed mixed results.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.05.444.00 62.282.00 64. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.

371). B = . p<. R2=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .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=.070.167. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. F=18. p<.459. Kurtosis=-. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. 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 4.608.463.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.4).

In both studies. however.467. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.01 t=-. 4.6.30). the H9.603.690. p<. In Study 1C. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.01. t(300) = 2.032.Therefore. p<. and t(250) = 2. p<.1. p<. and H9. p<. N. In Study 1B and Study 3. However.31).187.01 t=4.521. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. N.05 respectively. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. were supported. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.S t=2. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. N.780.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. N.820. t= . Table 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.01 (see table 4.690. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.164. p<. p<. p<. F(2.S. p<.677.S t=1.480. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. 249) = 5.298. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. 1C and 3. With motorcycle drivers. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.2.05 Study 1C t=2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<.210.01 t=2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.30: 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=2.05 t=.603.05 t=4. p<.S t=2. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .01 t=2.

N.01). F(2. N. In Study 1B.904. F=4. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.763.01).57. F=2.526. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.804. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.01 Study 3 F=1.041.01. F=2. 150 .521.S. Table 4. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. F=.S.564. F(2. N.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.S.01 F=. 299) = 4. In Study 1C. p<.077. F=1. N.S.021. N. p<. p<. 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).S.398.629. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S. F=2. mixed results were found. N.S.422. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F=5.01). 249) = 10.432. p<.432. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.S.182.632.S. In Study 3. F=1. N.041. mean IND scores of Malay. N. p<. N. N. F(2. N.05 Study 1C F=5.S. F=1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.01 F=2.01.05.155.S. p<.567. p<. F=2. N.S. 299) = 5.S.561. N.S F=10. F=1.31: 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. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.

that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. were supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. In Study 3. H11. 4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. externally-focused frustration.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. freeway urgency. However. was supported.4. H10. 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. 151 . that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. were all supported. H11. VER and IND subscale scores. 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. The higher the total aggression scores. Therefore. H10. freeway urgency. H10. H11.1.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.32).6.3 and H11. respectively.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.Therefore. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.3 and H11.2.4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.29). that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. however. In Studies 1B and 1C. only H11. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.

881. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. p<.01 respectively.S.01 B=.01 respectively.01.05 B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. respectively. p<. p<. p<.324. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. but not in Study 3.01 B=. p<.387. 1C. p<.216. p<. F=3.01.380. B = . B = . With both automobile and taxicab drivers. the higher were total BIT scores.235. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.370.01 and B = .385.121.01 B=.01. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .229. p<.048. Also. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<. B = . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. Similarly. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.565. Study 1C and Study 3. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.263.01 Study 1C B=.S.Table 4.01. Study 2 and Study 3. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<.01 B=.520. However.01.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.505.461.01.05 (see Figure 4. but not in Study 3.483. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.5). and B = . B = . B = .438.01 B=.183.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.545. p<.01 and B = . p<.491.01 Study 3 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. B=.01 B=. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. N. and B = . N.428. p<. p<. respectively. p<.01 B=.01 B=. B = .540.370. p<. p<.05 B=. 1B. 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.263.204.

and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. B=-.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. The moderating effect of I was significant.00 IndianMalaysian 48.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.961. Kurtosis=-.00 46. p<. B=-.516. Kurtosis=-.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.645. p<.01. F=100. R2=. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.100.12. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.05.172.076.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. In other words. F=81.00 42.00 44. respectively.362. for Study 1B. p<.929.6.01.316.01. Study 1C and Study 3.131. p<. p<.003. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.271. R2=. 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.01. and B=-.297.6. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.

757.704.015.794.387.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.069. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. p<. p<. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.6. Kurtosis=.360.897.606.12.01. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. p<. Kurtosis=-. respectively).01. F=91. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=. Kurtosis=-.297.088.297. F=71. B = .694.117. p<. p<.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2=.01. R2=.271. F=94. F=78. respectively). R2=. In Study 1B.507.01. Kurtosis=.01 respectively.431.109.369.6). R2=. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01 and B = . R2=. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.015.271.

R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. H12.3. and the moderation effect was not significant. that the internality.01 respectively. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. Therefore. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.significant. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . B = .01 and B = .302. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.332.7).2. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.1. p<. and H12. p<.

There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. 156 .6. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.05. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. t(250) = 3. 4.343.05). p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.01. However. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.279.737.01 but not on about the derogation of others. 248) = 3. t(249)=2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. 249) = 4.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.314. p<.05). Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.885. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. H122 and H12.263. F(2.01. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 249) = 5. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. and about revenge F(2. p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Also.01).05. p<.1.13 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. Only H12.3.

it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.277.3.01. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. p<. This means that.Therefore. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.6.3.379. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. p<. respectively.01. 157 .01. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. the higher were total BIT scores.01.1. p<.224. p<.01. B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.01 and destination-activity orientation. B = . B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<.01. p<. B = . p<. H13.01 and B = . were supported. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. Therefore. on total BIT score were also tested. the higher the total HAT scores. p<.413. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. was supported. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.2. were supported. H13.394. was not supported.192. B = . B = . was partially supported. H14. This means that.364.307. externally-focused frustration.1 and H13. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. 4. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H14. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.2 and H14. freeway urgency.

-554.8).297.002. p<. 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. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.4. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01.085).188. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .6. In other words.072). also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. F=57. F=55.911. p<. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Physical Aggression and Revenge.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. R2=. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4.05. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=.565. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. B = . Kurtosis=.01.809.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=. p<.297.013.

159 .246. were supported. However.297. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. B = .3.207. 4. Kurtosis=. p<. H15.6.01. 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. was not supported.33).Aggression was significant.1 and H15.01. R2=. F=59. p<. H15.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.294. was supported. B = . that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.2. p<. Therefore.475.026.092). and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.01.

S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.Table 4.S 3 P.S S S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S N.2.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. S N.S P.1.2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S S S N.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.S N.1.S S S S P.S S S S S N.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.33: 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.2.2.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S S N.S P.1.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S S S N.S S S N.S 160 .S S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S P.S N.S S N.S S N.S N.S.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.3.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S P.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S 1C P.S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S N.S P.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.

2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.S 1B N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S S S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S P.S N. N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.3.S N.S N.S N.S P.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.S N.S N.S P.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S N.S 161 .3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S= Partially Supported.S S S S S S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6. P.S S S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S P.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S P.S= Not Supported.S N.S 3 N.Table 4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S S S S S P.S N.S 2 N.S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.

4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control 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 H13.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S S S N.S= Not Supported.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S S 2 3 P.S S N.Table 4.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S S S P. N. P.S P.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Partially Supported.S S S N.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 162 .S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.

F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2).93 . AQ. AQ. C.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.060 Note: Internality (I). and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. C.80 104. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.068 . e.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. 2002). F4 χ2 49. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.02 d.00126 . F2.00000 . P. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Externality Chance (C). freeway urgency. P.58 35. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .34. HAT Proximal Factors F1. Aggression (AQ). F3. P. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). HAT I. C. F3.97 63.g. F2. C.087 . F2.00111 . 163 . Hopelessness (BHS). This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. BHS I.f. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).93 .045 . F3 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F4 F1. BHS.4. F3. C. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).05522 . P. P. 4. Hopelessness. two were worthy of further examination. AQ I.96 . F2.96 RMSEA . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F3. F4 F1.093 . F2. C. AQ. P I.7.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.93 .102 . F3.97 .90 110. F2. BHS. HAT I.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. Study 2: motorcycle driver.00000 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.00000 . F4 F1.38 100. Table 4.

and PGFI=. . . The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. .32. Externality (Powerful-Other). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.26.13.060.23 respectively (see Figure 4.35.91. values were: NFI=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.3. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. CFI=. RMR=.043.02.destination-activity orientation (F4). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. .92) on accident involvement. RMSEA=. GFI=.51 and PGFI=. RMR=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.=24. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. RMSEA=. with path coefficients = -. . 5.f. Externality (Chance). 164 .42.97. For Model C5. ECVI=.42.10). Externality (Chance). ECVI=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.f. which are detailed in sect.10). For Model C6. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.29 and . but not as good as for C5. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.22 respectively (see Figure 4. An alternate model. GFI=.97. d. AGFI=.26.=33. with path coefficients = -. d. AGFI=.14.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.92) on accident involvement.96. of the BIT score. . For Model C6.48.043.5. For Model C5.045. CFI=. C6.98). Externality (Powerful-Other). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.96.94.97.28 and . values for these additional indices were: NFI=. To aid this discussion.

92* Accident Involvement .97 d. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.045 RMR=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .51* .f =24 CFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .29* Aggression (AQ) .58* .57* Injury Occurrence .97 GFI=.32* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.99 P-value = .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.63* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.79* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .

92* Accident Involvement .77* .02 GFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .39* .29* Aggression (AQ) .56* .060 RMR=.f =33 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.63* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.98 P-value = .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .31* Externality (Chance) . *p<.50* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.96 d.

HOS. CFI=. F4 F1.f. F3 F1.95). path coefficients = . ANG.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. HAT-D. IND. HAT-P. F4 F1.66).91 . HAT-P.66 131. Verbal aggression (VER).92 .73 169. Hostility (HOS). Indirect aggression (IND). HOS.35). HOS.91. HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). ANG.66 153. HAT-D. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .41. Aggression (AQ).80) on the accident involvement. HOS. VER. F2. HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).080 . F3. F4 χ2 108. F2. IND.13 respectively. GFI=. F2. F2. F3. HAT-R PHY. freeway urgency (F2). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. RMSEA=. HAT-D. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG.00000 . HAT-D. HOS.93 . ANG. IND PHY. VER. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.078. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.=61.f.084 . F3 F1.084 .00000 . IND. Angry (ANG).94 169. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.65 and .91 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.10. HAT-R PHY.081 . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. 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). F2. VER. d.91 .00000 . IND. ANG.00000 GFI RMSEA .41 d. 167 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).In addition.00111 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HAT-R PHY.

078 RMR=.80* Accident Involvement .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.000 N=252 RMSEA=.f =61 CFI=.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .91 d.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .65* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 . *p<.58* .83* .29* Hostility .62* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.69* Anger .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.61* .72* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .41 GFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* Indirect Aggression .95 P-value = .

058 . the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.33 33.06722 .86 23 28 23 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. BHS F1. BHS I.047. F2. F4 F1. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. C.12 d. Hopelessness (BHS). Externality Powerful-Other (P).17631 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). d. F3. the participants were motorcycle drivers.062 Note: Internality (I).94 .7. GFI=. path coefficients = -.f.66) on the accident involvement.f. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F2.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. C. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. C. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).94 .65 and . F3.94. RMSEA=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. P I.12).07580 .047 . freeway urgency (F2). F3 F1. P.12. p-value GFI RMSEA I.4. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.80 respectively (see Figure 4. 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=29.36).2 Study 2 In Study 2.98). Externality Chance (C). F2.=28. CFI=. 169 . F4 39.95 . P.

f =23 CFI=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.78* .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .88* Crash Occurrence .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .57* Internality -.95 d.83* BIT3 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.047 RMR=.89* .12 GFI=.99 P-value = .65* Externality (Chance) .70* BIT4 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.

F3.37). CFI=.079 Injury Occurrence I.027 I. F2.93 .061 Note: Internality (I). Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).39 21 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. AQ F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.95.95 .35265 . Hopelessness (H).20 respectively (see Figure 4.00524 . P Proximal Factors F1. F2.4. but not Externality.061.7.3 Study 3 In Study 3. 37. GFI=. P.f. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.06743 .22 23 .40) on the accident involvement. C. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F4 50.59 17 . C. AQ F1. C. F3. C. Internality and AQ.82 28 . F2. P.94 .39.=21. freeway urgency (F2). RMSEA=.20 and . I. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. path coefficients = -. F3.95). 171 .f.97 .03084 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. d. F3. AQ F1. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Externality Chance (ExC).13). have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F4 Outcomes χ2 d. the participants were taxi drivers. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.

40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.39 GFI=.61* BIT4 .20* Externality (Chance) . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .39* Internality -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* BIT3 .95 P-value = .f =21 CFI=.95 d. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.74* -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.13 .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .061 RMR=.

2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. 2 and 3 are satisfied. 173 . BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). and.4.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. consistent with path analysis results. 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.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. Therefore. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Table 4. 4.8. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.38).8.39). 4.

8.41). in Studies 1A. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. where the 174 . Table 4. Table 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.8.40).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. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). 1B and 1C.

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. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Table 4.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.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. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.

05. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). p <. Study 1B vs.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Study 1B vs. p <.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. p <. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. p <. Study 1A vs.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.9. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. p <.442. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <.Table 4. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(372)= -3. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.01. Study 1A vs.993. 176 . Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 1C vs.426.665. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.837. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1C vs.162.01. Study 1A vs.01.663.

Also. p <. p <. p <. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.801.01.9. Study 2: t(421)= -3.402. p <. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. and t(986)= 35. 177 .01.01. p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4.9.01. Study 2: t(372)= -7. and to injury occurrence. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.577.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 8.01. p <. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -8. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 7.837.211. t(253) = 2. t(986)= 30.977.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. p <.687.861. “freeway urgency”.01. p <.200. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.01. 4. Study 1A vs. p <. respectively.433. p <. Study 1A vs.926. 4. Study 2: t(372)= -6.747.01.01. p <. Study 1C vs. t(986)= 34.01.261. Study 1C vs.614. p <. t(986)= 37.01. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 3. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.484. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. t(986)= 5.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Study 1C vs.01.704.186.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension.01. p <. p <. p <.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. Study 2: t(421)= -7.01.775. p <.

01and to injury occurrence. t(253)= 35. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.567.946.982. 178 .Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.01. Also. t(253)= 39.737. and t(253)= 37. “freeway urgency”.881.01. t(253)= 31. p <.016. p <. t(253)= 11.01.01. t(253)= 8. p <.01.01. p <. p <.977. t(253)= 8. respectively. p <. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.

Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. al. upon examination. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. 2002b). (1993).1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. multi-factorial perspective. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Elander et.4. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 1991).1). Elander et al. freeway urgency. 2. 1993. They found gender. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Evans. In an earlier study. Often. 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. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. 1995.2. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. including gender.

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

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

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

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

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

181

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

5.2

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

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

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

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

182

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

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

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

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

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

184

5.3 5.3.1

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

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

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

185

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

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

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

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

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

186

traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. SD=131.53. respectively). Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.1 months. 5. They were also more experienced (266. there are other possible influences.25 years.hierarchy. SD=1. In the present study. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. Inclán. as well.7 months. By virtue of their age and occupation. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Of course. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.01years. respectively). Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . Because of occupational demands.5.6 months as licensed drivers. For taxicab drivers. SD=1. SD=. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.16.1.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. For taxicab drivers. SD=11. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. and 36.2 years. 20. SD=22.63.3.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.

to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. In an environment where career choice. when compared to Canadian students. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. rife with bureaucracy. corrupt practices. Carment (1974) also found. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. 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. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Devashayam. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. along with selfpromotion skills. 2005). findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. however. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. were necessary to succeed. influence peddling and status-related privileges. 2003. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. 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.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). Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. The finding that Indian- 188 . spousal selection. financial matters and social affiliations are made. perhaps due as argued earlier. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them.

an internal locus of control. including locus of control. 1998. 1999.7 in 1996. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. by extension. as a group. 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. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. where Cheung et al. 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. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.3. Indeed. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 1999. Gomez. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 .5 million in 1991 to 11. 1981). 2002.5% annually from 9. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.8 million in 1996. as a result. Nandy. 1999). Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. and. Again.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers The present research found no significant difference between Malay and Chinese participants in any of the three dimensions of locus of control. but two possible influences stand out. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1966. Sendut. Salih &Young. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 5.

Miles & Johnson. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 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. 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. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Nonetheless. Oetting & Salvatore. with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. 2003. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. bringing them closer together in outlook. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. more recently. Parkinson. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Jenkins. Consistently. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 2000. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2001. 318).women’s friendship patterns. Lynch. Lawton & Nutter. 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. Huff. Clayton. 2008. Dukes. 5. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. by the enraged driver. 2001) In the present research. King & Parker. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Miller & Rodgers. 2002).

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

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 world and others). 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. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour.. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic..strongly. Such responses. as well. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. but not when they involved the derogation of others. in the samples studied here. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. although still significantly. The effects of aggression on behaviour. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). 2006). Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . however. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. That is. 1997). In essence.

The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. Meichenbaum. 401). 1990. 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. true to operant learning principles. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. Similarly. Novaco. p. Finally. Downe & Loke.e. 1987. like any other mental task. 193 . Generally. Language loaded with emotional content.. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. but there may be more to it than that. 1995. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. and particularly with negative emotion. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. Certainly. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. “in ergonomics. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. 1994. 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. 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.e.. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. It is moderated by cognitive processes. or self-talk. 1977). 2004.are determined by chance or fate. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 1979. (2003).

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

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

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

so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2001.90. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.5. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Structural equation modelling should. Fit index values (e. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. Md-Sidin. Maruyama. 5. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2006. we would argue. It is argued here that. 1998). Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.. CFI. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models.In the present research. 2001.. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. RMSEA lower than . 2006). GFI. 2000). 1998. significant p-values can be expected. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. Sambasivan & Ismail. As a general rule. CFI and CFI) greater than . it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.g. 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. At the same time. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.. Hair et al.

4.10) excluded the fourth factor.soundness. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. statistical. “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. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. stating that. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. destination-activity orientation. More importantly. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. There is some support for this position in the literature.3). 1C5 and 1C6. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. Thus. and practical considerations (p. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. 88).7. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. 158). provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In the case at hand. However. In some cases.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.1. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. two structural equation models. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. as suggested by Byrne (2001).

48 30. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 0.99 0.96 1. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. P. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. AQ. P.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. 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.02 0.94 0.034 97.97 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.Table 5.98 0. F2.97 0.045 0.97 1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0.96 0. 199 . Injury Occurrence 35.02 0. AQ. F2. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.42 11. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.499 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.91 0. C. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.060 0.02 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. C. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.909 0.043 129.

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

externalitychance. on crash outcomes.14. In Study 1C.45).35 and .g. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.1). externality-powerful other. 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. . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. aggression. 2001. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.6. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Rothengatter.5. for automobile drivers sampled. externally-focused frustration. 2003).5. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .18) and injury occurrence (r = -.26.21).5. 1991. with five distal factors (internality. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . externality-powerful other. via BIT. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. Sümer.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.28 and .35. freeway urgency. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. .66). crash occurrence (r = -. externality-chance. and hostile automatic thoughts). As observed from the investigation of structural paths.4.34) and injury occurrence (r = .29). Evans.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . The results suggested that the alternative model. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.28 respectively).1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers Sümer (2003) pointed out that comparing the goodness of fit indices of several alternative models can help to clearly identify where lack of fit arises within a model. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. .

the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. freeway urgency.20) and injury occurrence (r = . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.25). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .66) directly predicted crash outcomes.23) and injury occurrence (r = . had a better fit than other alternative models. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 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.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . which sampled motorcyclists. Aggression. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.41).5. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = . Results indicated that the first alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. 202 . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration.24). on the other hand. 5. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. externality-chance.55).65 and . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .4.

with the sample of taxicab drivers. freeway urgency. externality-chance. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Finally. 203 . freeway urgency. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and.5. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.20 and . internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. 5. had no significant effect on BIT scores.6.5. externality-chance.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3.4. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. For motorcyclists.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externality-powerful other. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. However. Results indicated that the third alternative model. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. such as internality. with four distal factors (internality. hopelessness. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. Distal factors. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. crash occurrence. crash occurrence. for the sample of taxicab drivers. 4.3). as a result. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. via BIT. aggression). to measure outcome. their crash occurrence. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. had a better fit than alternative models.5. externality-powerful other and aggression). in turn and indirectly. externally-focused frustration. for crash outcomes. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.

The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.6 5.5. chosen at random from taxi stands. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.6. Huguenin. To a large extent. Sekaran (2003) points out. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were.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. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. In the present research. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. a total of five samples were taken. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 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. 2005). 278279). by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 2005. 2004). With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 204 . 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. Further. however.

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.55). while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. in Malaysia. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. as elsewhere. Sabah.6% (Study 1A: 99. 205 . Since. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.31.13 years (SD = 1. Study 1B: 100%. Table 5. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.2%).2% and Study 2: 99. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Selangor. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.In Malaysia. Study 1C: 99.2). The most populous state. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.6%. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. with a mean age of 20. 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. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.

260.150.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.188 1.0 8. For that reason.500 1.7 (2) 2. Table 5.5 (4) 4.2 (11) 12.6 2.286 1.4 5.2 (5) 0.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.818.100.887.000 1. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.8 (6) 6.000 Per cent of national population 26.000 3.2 (1) 3.300.1 (7) 8.2: 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) 7.200.7 (14) But.674 1. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.503.6 5.9 9.6 (10) 7. 206 .0 4.807 733. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.2 3.5 (8) 3.387.000 1. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 (13) 11.2 7.8 6.3 (12) 11. In both cases.0 12.6 6. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. Not all states have the same number of drivers.2 11.396.500.9 (9) 7.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.000 215. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.004.9 (3) 2. in this case.000 2. Table 5.Table 5.576 2.880 3.000 2.6 0.

98 0.003 10.735 165.163 10.635 1.617 10.90 5.561 1.27 14.36 8.50 29.84 11.45 9.104 6.75 4.230 266.76 3.93 9.137 698.19 7.43 2.064 9.22 17.212 39.428.920 181.041 92.34 3.93 0.05 2.20 12.91 2.97 12.37 3.63 207 .785 393.28 3.600 135.24 2.144 12.35 4.19 4.46 8.88 3.16 2.467 25.093 5.026 10.170 13.490 525.588.4 4.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.496 187.029 273.774 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 12.251 324.89 3.88 2.198 156.Table 5.55 7.96 3.92 25.19 3.606 24.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.13 6.34 11.24 0.68 7.768 6.70 3.70 12.85 1.725 70.

656 821.48 1.003 10.221 36.989 6.14 7.64 2.75 5.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.995 233.958 % Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.46 5.133 705.76 3.93 7.144 12.93 9.38 0.64 1.27 14.59 1.170 13.10 9.305 276.36 8.727 161.63 11.66 11.561 1.92 25.02 10.45 2.28 3.02 7.33 4.49 12.43 2.768 6.112 347.615.22 3.026 10.288 444.88 3.212 39.15 5.35 4.49 0.283 770.4 4.79 13.104 6.856 310.63 13.38 4.37 3.992 776.98 0.88 2.59 12.03 4.722 255.46 14.Table 5.467 25.617 10.064 9.679 90.029 273.20 15.82 9.74 208 .606 24.725 70.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.

was representative of a high risk driver population.903** . Table 5. Of course.814** 1 .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . participants came from – or. At least on these dimensions.4. it can be argued that they were. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .Table 5. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.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) .3 and 5.824** . it is possible to say that sampling. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. 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. 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.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . at least.

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

muscle tension. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. In future studies. as well. 13). therefore. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e.. Particularly. 1996). Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. blood pressure. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 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. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or..effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. in studies of driving behaviour. In the present research. though. the longer the time period for data collection. for instance. The assumption.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. Yet. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. the more information is lost through memory lapses.g. combined interview and observational methods. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Visser and Denis (2004). (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. 211 . questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. 5.6.g.

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

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

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

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

patterns of relationships. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. 32). or represent processes. often in graphical form (Grayson. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. Hauer (1987). Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. The answer to this question is possibly yes. check facts. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. stating that. 94). at times. The answer is probably not. p. if they are modest in ambition. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. 294). in particular to structure data. on the other hand. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. Grayson (1997) agreed. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. 1997. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . 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.

For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. In this case. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. 304). In 217 . The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 2.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. and if they are resultscentred (pp.3). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. Yet. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. hopelessness. 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. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 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. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. In the present research. 95-96). This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. for instance. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). who argued that.

sensation seeking (Sümer. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. 2. as defined by Grayson (1997).7.3. not on everyday driving. psychoticism. Kerlinger (2000) and others. while still very much a model and not a theory. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.. crash-free 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). together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. for instance. While the present research 218 . depression. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 5. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. conscientiousness. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. With several exceptions. extraversion.other studies. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. 2005) were included as distal variables. much current research. The contextual mediated framework. 2003). the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. openness.4). anxiety. According to Ranney (1994).

relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for.did not test any of those theories specifically. 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. Conversely. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. no matter how reliable a safety device. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. As a result. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. Within their proposed conceptual framework. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. Following this reasoning. On the other hand. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. They argued that locus of control. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. 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. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. 219 . 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. or at least to react more slowly. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. 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.

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

teams of humans. 1).4. or legal intervention. 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. World Health Organisation.7.7. From this has emerged the growing 221 . At the same time.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. for the last fifty years. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 5.4). Unlike 100 years ago. education. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 1957. 1957).5. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. and machines are highly intricate (p.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.4. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. Slinn. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1961. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.

there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. 2005).6). 2001). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Maggio & Jin. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2003). Murazami. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. 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. for instance. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. depending on environmental factors. 2001). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. (Bishop. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. In the case of LKA. Suda & Ono. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. These have been applied to in-car. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5.6). 222 . Sadano. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. or the adaptive automation concept. At the same time. Stough.

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

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

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

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

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

 driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. safety messages.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.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.1.  dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. notification of construction ahead. H 1. This information allows drivers to avoid or. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. at least. 228 . weather-related road conditions. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.

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

1978. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. They also stated. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. N6). Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. legal measures change least often. 265). 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. however. The bias of false consensus. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. from the findings of the present research.7. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. or an internal locus of control. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. 2007. 1030).4.4 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. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. p. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. was studied in a 230 . that “Of these three approaches. p. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. such as visibility of enforcement. Second.5. First.

Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 1991. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 1992).sample of drivers by Manstead. By doing so. 2001. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . Stradling. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and.” 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). 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. after all. Azjen & Fishbein. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 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). drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. on the other. is allowed to occur in a Just World. Reason & Baxter. Parker. 498). Ajzen.

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

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

consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. 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. Harrell. 1982). 1974). and accident risk (e. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde.. 1986.g. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. However. or external locus of control. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 1995. it is argued here. as well as statistical grounds. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. like Brown and Noy (2004). Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . the best fit usually implies the best model. Montag & Comrey. 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. In most cases. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. Hoyt. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. Further. In the present research. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes.. task capability (Fuller. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. 2003). This is Of the variables studied.In the current literature. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. 1987). The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1973).

g.aggression were observed. Groeger & Rothengatter. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. Several authors (e. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Huguenin. 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. cultural anthropology. Rothengatter. For example. 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. they 235 . In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. 2005. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). road engineering and ergonomics. 1998. However.. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. 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. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. in combination. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

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

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 125-127. 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. New York: Academic. 36. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. L-L. W. Hwang. 11. Differentiating among internality. (1980). Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. E. 59-67.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. 2007 from http://thestar. 39(3).P.htm. [280] Lin. H. Neighbors. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Retrieved April 5. 213-222. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. (Ed.my/news/story. (1979). 536-545. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. D. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. and Yen.S. (2007. D.[277] Levenson.. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention..S.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. [281] Lindsey. 8-9 [282] Liverant. 263 . (Ed. 10. (1981). Wu. A. [279] Lim.. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. J. [283] Lonczak... (1997).P.A. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.M. [286] Looi.limkitsiang.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. C. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. In Lefcourt. [278] Levy.M. (1960). 15-63). The Star Online. M-R. 2007 from http://www. powerful others and chance. H-D. February 2). March 26). [284] Lonero. In Rothe. [285] Loo. Psychological Reports. H-F. (1999. H. H. (2004). Huang. 7. R. (2007). L. and Scodel. I. F. and Donovan. Retrieved May 14. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.com. K.

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

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

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

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

Injury Prevention.B. Zwi (1997). Garner. (1997). Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. 4(2). P. (1998). [339] Olson. P. R. A. (Eds. Human factors in modern traffic systems. W. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. UK: Ashgate.S. Temes. P. and Hermida. p. and Williams. R. Pentilla. (2007. M. [331] Novaco. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Driver suicides. In Fuller. R. says operator.W. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 253-326). 43-76). February 8). 268 . J. 92-93.38. [341] Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. 34. Tucson. [340] O’Neill.[330] Novaco. (2000).) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Driver perception-response time. 201-215). and Lonnqvist. A. Ergonomics. 2(5). and Z. 4. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. F. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. and Santos. I. Aggression on roadways. R. 468-472. p. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. and Olson. 237-252. (Ed. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.A. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. [334] Ochando. E.W. Straits Times. (1997). (1996).L. (2001). R. [338] Ohberg. (1996.. K. 171. Tropical Medicine and International Health. (2002). M. A. December 9). [337] Ogden. [333] N-S highway still one of the safest roads. Oxford UK: North Holland. Amsterdam: Elsevier [336] Odero.. N51. Aldershot. J.R. J. 1016-1024. [332] Noy. British Journal of Psychiatry.. 40(10). [335] O’Connell. In Baenninger.L (2002).F (2001). In Dewar. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. 654-656. 445-460. B.W.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allowing the wheel to turn. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. presumably because of personality factors. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. on most surface types. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. or benefits. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . Immediately after releasing the pressure. the brake line pressure is relates. As a result. (see also. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. differential accident involvement). drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. ABS ensures that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

__________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.g. We are not asking for your name. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.g. Most of the time when you travel. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. please answer the following questions: 2. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. 1. _________.what manufacturer & model (e. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 .CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. _________.

what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . Within the last twelve (12) months. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9.8. 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 car. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. most of the time ___ no 11. all the time ___ yes.

sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. but no injuries? If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . 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 phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15.12. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your gender? 16. Within the last twelve months. 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.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.