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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

some personality constructs. vii . The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. hopelessness. and that driver behaviours. and destination-activity orientation. demographic (age. where. respectively). 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). However. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. 302 and 252. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. seven fatalities are recorded each day. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. personality traits. on average.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined.

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

4.2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 Concepts.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1.3.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 1.4 1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2.3.5 1.4 Risk Theories 2.3.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1.3.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2.3 ix . Theories and Models 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 2.3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Accident Proneness 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 1.3 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 2.2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3.2.2.

6 2.1.5.3 Psychological Variables 2.6.2 Process Models 2.5.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.4.1 Statistical Models 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2.5.1 Locus of Control 2.1 Demographic Variables 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.1 Experience 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.5.2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.5.3.4.5.4.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.5.1.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2.9.6.3.3.4.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.3.5.5.2.3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.2.7.3 Locus of Control 3.5.4.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1 Age 2.4.4.1.3.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2.1.3 Ethnicity 2.5.1.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2.2.2 Hopelessness 2.5 2.5.5.1.2 Gender 2.4 2.2.2.2.1 3.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.4 Hopelessness 3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.4.3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.3.3.

4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.2.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.4 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.3 Study 1C 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.7.2.7.7.2 Research Instruments 3.3.5.3.7.2 Study 1B 3.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.5.7.3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 3.2.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 Study 1A 3.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.4 Study 2 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.5.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.3 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.6 3.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.7.7.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.6.7.3.7.3.6.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.7.7.1 The Sample 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.9 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 .7 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.5.5.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.5.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.3.5.7.7.2.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2.2.7.2.2.

6.1.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.12.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.5.3.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.5 4.5.6.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.2.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.1 Age.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6 xii .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.2.3 Validity Test Results 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.6.5.3.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.1 Description of the Sample 4.3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.1.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.12.3 4.6.6.6.1.2 Results of Study 2 4.3.6.4 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.

5.5.8 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.6.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.5.4 5.1 Study 1C 4.3. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.9.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.8.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.7.6.5 5.8.4.8.5.5.3.7.5.4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.7 4.6.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.6 xiii .1 Generalisability of Findings 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3.6.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.4.7.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.9.1 5.4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.5.2 5.5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.2 Study 2 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.8.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.

3 Driver Selection.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4.7.5.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.1 Theory vs.6.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.7 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.4.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7.3 Education 5.4.7.

Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.5 4.1 4.4 115 117 118 119 4. Table Page 2.4 3.2 4.LIST OF TABLES No. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3 3.6 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 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.1 3.2 3.1 2. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.10 4.9 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.5 4.11 xv .3 3.3 114 4.7 4.

4.29 xvi .23 136 4.24 137 4.13 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.25 138 4.21 135 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.12 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.18 131 4.20 134 4.19 133 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.16 128 4.28 4.27 4.22 136 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 4.17 129 4.14 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.

32 4.41 175 5.3 5.33 4.34 4.31 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 4.6 xvii .5 209 225 5.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.37 4.2 5.1 199 206 207 5.35 4.4.4 208 5.30 4.36 4.39 4.

1 2.2 3. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.4 4.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.1 4. 1996.4 2.3 2.6 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.2 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.7 2.LIST OF FIGURES No.2 147 148 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.4 148 xviii .1 3. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Hatakka.3 3.3 4. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.9 59 2.

7 4.12 4.8 4.9 4.13 xix .6 4.10 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.5 4.4.

Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. they were focused on the errand. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I wanted to throw in the towel. He didn’t want to go. programme. externally-focused frustration. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. and this thesis is the result. My research design needed a serious re-working. and his mental state. he’d taken the same course as she. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. they are prone to other types of error as well. I like to watch boxing. But. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. they cut across a lane too quickly. I was confused by the results I was getting. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I told her not to worry. things were not going well.D. I’m a fairly big guy. How important these factors are. LISREL couldn’t. to the weary traveler. at least not with real tears. He was driving. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. They were hurrying. Her hands and voice quivered. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. she was riding pillion. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. but she’d nagged him. I feel like it a bit right now. lane deviation and all the rest. xx . is a matter of debate … Obviously. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. . He was very popular with other students. finally.PREFACE Accidents occur. She had been badly injured. just every so often. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. I’m pretty happy with it. or wouldn’t. I knew the fellow. I hope it makes a contribution. She had needed to go on an errand. only a trimester or two earlier. But sometimes. they were frustrated and angry with each other. And they crashed. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. The behaviour of the traveller. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. She started crying and couldn’t stop. I didn’t recognise her at first. 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. I don’t cry much any more. I got back to work on them.

Sleet. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. 2007. Green. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Iwasaki. Furuichi & Kadoma.g. Even after decades of study. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 1999). Scurfield. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Consistently over the years. 2000). Mohan & Hyder.. Olson. commented that.. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2004). state of mind and physical well-being. 2002). 2000). highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Mills & Vavrik. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 2000. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. Trick.g. policy-makers. Sabey (1999). 2006. road. Theeuwes.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. for instance. Peters & Peters. judgement. Graham. 2004).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 1996. such as Malaysia. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. anticipation. Ogden. 2002.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. perceptual (Hong. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Enns. Stanton & Pinto. cognitive (Vaa. including the 1 . perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2007. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2001). 2004) have been studied extensively. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 11). 2001. Verwey.

2007). 1989).2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.790. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 2005). 21). According to Dewar (2002b).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.112). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. However. 1983). “the literature on personality has a long history. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. p. The chapter 1. 2003). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.351. 2 . as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. locus of control. A total of 10.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.roadway. 2004. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 2002. including the study of a large number of variables. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. There was a total of 341. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. McKenna.332 drivers and 15. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

to 45-minute trips.are most important in predicting. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. In Study 2. 9 . with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. a third model was constructed. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. 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. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. over the course of 30. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. In Study 3.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Again. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. verbally administered psychometric instruments. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. After the initial model-building had been completed. 1. in fact.

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

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

they indicated “angry”. 2005). In newspaper reports. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. industrialisation and motorisation. to a rapid increase 12 . economic expansion. “peaceful”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006.1 2. “laid-back” and “considerate”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2003). or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2007). when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. Over 6. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “reckless”. 2005). Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. 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. “friendly”. there were 341. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 1989). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. in order of frequency. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. “bullies” and “selfish”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2006). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. inconsiderate and aggressive. 2007). 2007). “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. These are thought to have contributed. in aggregate. Recently.1. 2005). “impatient”. 2007). as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “patient”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. A developing country in Southeast Asia.

20 deaths per 10. Abdul Rahman.98 deaths per 10. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Radin Umar.891 8. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. This suggests that studies. Studies 13 . 2005).091 37. 2005).109 in 1996 to a total of 341.287 9.815 2005 328.552 37.885 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.425 5.645 54. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.395 2006 6. In Malaysia.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar. Table 2.2).in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.7111 2003 298.228 9.653 2004 326.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Subramaniam & Law. from 189.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.264 2006 341.741 38.286 9.425 2003 6.304 in 1994 to 6.000 vehicles in 2006. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.236 49.218 2005 6.000 vehicles (Law.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.417 47.200 9.287 in 2006.040 2004 6. 2005). 2003. & Wong. drivers within the senior secondary school and university age ranges must be regarded as being at a potentially higher level of risk than other age cohorts. Generally.415 52. Table 2.012 19. in Malaysia. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2007). 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.

08 2.06 608 3. and particularly among younger drivers.15 572 2.110 10.997 14.61 99 0.81 1.07 2.593 11. Morrison & Ryan.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.85 147 0.48 323 1.416 6.97 1.418 100 19. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.64 135 0.953 17. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.16 90 0.05 2.26 463 2.68 128 0.315 17.81 3.341 12.07 2. Table 2.967 100 19.92 1.63 160 0.90 159 0.309 10.40 1.038 13.56 3.025 9.65 121 0. general insurers paid RM1. 2001.50 979 4.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.37 337 1.469 15.205 11. Palamara.77 3.31 3.71 543 2.94 2.180 10.023 5.620 7.82 1.05 1.7 billion.378 11.15 3.21 3.11 2. It has been reported that. or an average of RM4. 14 . Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.08 585 2.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.820 13.947 10.41 302 1.76 22.92 2. 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.29 2.67 billion.80 203 0.08 541 2.389 6.45 30 0. 2002.94 1. 2005).049 15.65 2.086 9.27 458 2.22 150 0.034 4. 2003).29 708 3. in 1999 alone.47 280 1.005 15.216 10.709 8.448 17.94 625 3.99 164 0.91 984 4.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.551 12.08 1.803 9.84 1.67 206 0.05 2.15 43 0.72 554 2. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. or about 2.81 2.4 billion to RM5.48 105 0.431 7.23 2.10 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.54 708 3.178 15.49 450 2.68 3.85 2. 2006). 2001).921 100 20.

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

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

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

This.122). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. The very monotony of the road surface. generalising to all driving environments and situations. they are accident prone. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 1996).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. 18 . 110). 121-122). “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. since 1994. He argued that. however. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 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. resulted in a myriad of problems. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. has linked peninsular communities. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 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. According to Williamson.

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

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

321). there has been an interest in driver personality. 1961. 2005).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. the lack of replication of many studies. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic.traffic accidents and found to be wanting in one or more of these methodological aspects and concluded that: If these studies are representative of the research done. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 21 . 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 1997a). information processing. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.2.2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2002. 2003). Underwood & Milton. 2003).2. Preston & Harris. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1993). 482). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 1996. Nevertheless. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

195). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. in any sample. inadequate or irrelevant. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 1991. The accident-prone concept. 1939) and many others. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 422). perhaps physiological. Johnson (1946). with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 1929. None of the experiments. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. made an assumption that. 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. 1997). produced a positive. however. Farmer and Chambers (1926. Scores on the λ dimension. 1956). 2004). in traffic or when playing 29 . p. “Because crashes are so infrequent. noting that. by devising clever tests.out what that value is. in successive years. subjects reported significant. as well. in a Finnish telephone survey. but did not take into consideration whether. more probably psychological (p. at home. 294). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. 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. inappropriate. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 2004). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa.

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

people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. following their review of the literature. Wilde (1982. 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. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. A driver who enters a construction zone.accident proneness (Chmiel. 2. in fact. substantially. However. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.4. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. The introduction of divided highways.3. in a study of driving on icy roads. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. experience more accidents than others. 2. Summala and Mersalo (1980) demonstrated that drivers using studded tyres increased their speed to a level where the skid margin approached that of drivers using normal tyres.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. large earth-moving 31 . 2000). 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.3. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. crash barriers. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. Elander et al. For example. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. That is.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.

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

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

Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. Summala. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. 1987. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 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. or expecting. and 34 . p. At this point. In addition. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence.3. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.4. Rather. 81). zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 2004. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. for example. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 2. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. In other words. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. after a similar review. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. 92). 26). While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing.

The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. and specific driver actions. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 2002. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. much of which arises from personality. for instance. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold.learn how to respond safety to. as a result. Hataaka. Meijman & Roghengatter. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts.3.5 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. age and social variables. Keskinen. A large number of studies show that external motives. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Van der Hulst. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 1998. Glad & Hernetkoskis. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. 2. On the other hand. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. 1999). such as time pressure. 1996. Reeder et al. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Summala (1996.1). If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Gregersen. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. 35 . very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.

1996) Keskinen et al.1: Task Cube (from Summala. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but. for example. seemingly concurrently. at the same time. 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. but that is not 36 . Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.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. 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. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 15). a property absent within the task cube concept. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.

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

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

denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). 24). 2. p. then. To deal with this uncertainty. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 2007). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. According to the TPB.” (Azjen. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 39 .3.7. 1985. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. see Figure 2. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. “Even very mundane activities. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will.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”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). however (Sharma & Kanekar. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).

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

2. Austin and Carson (2002).In another study. Similar to later findings by Law et al. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. for instance. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.1. based on data extracted from police record forms. 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.4 2.2). it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. 2.4. but PBC did not contribute to the prediction of speeding violations measured with an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) device that logged km/hr and location at all times the vehicle was in motion. 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. 2002). while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. but after controlling for distance travelled. vehicles.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Attitude toward speeding. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.

1997) 42 .4.. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1998. within specific situational contexts. 1997.locations and settings (e. Koonchote & Tantiratna.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.g. Mahasakpan. Swaddiwudhipong. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Nguntra. Seow & Lim. 2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. 1999).4). the road (R) and the environment (E). 2000). One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. 1994). E and especially H factors. Richardson & Downe. More recently. Law. however.4.1 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).2 Process Models 2. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. R. the vehicle (V).

2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. on the other hand. 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.g. gender. as well.4.2. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. contribute directly to crash outcomes...5). more proximal variable. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. on one hand. sensation seeking. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.2. Factors within the distal context include not only road. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. speeding. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.. aggression). Therefore. By contrast. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. 283). relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. extraversion. 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.g. Within the generic model. 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. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. it may influence crash risk through some other. Personality factors within the 43 . substance abuse) that. age.g.

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

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. If. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation.2. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. for instance. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. In Figure 2. Heppner & Mallinckrodt.6(i). M. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. Tix and Barron. Figure 2.2. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. such that path c′ is zero. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. 45 . 2004). Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 2006). Also termed intervening variables. 1986). driver propensities to commit errors or violations. moderating or mediating effects. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. called the outcome. 2003).4. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.

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

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

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

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

2002. Retting.1.8). Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.5. Odero et al. 2007) 2. Weinstein & Solomon. Type A. 1995).5 2. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2003)...1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. Distal factors Safety interventions  knowledge transfer  ergonomic design  safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate  worker attitude toward safe work  perceived management priority  employee empowerment and control over safety  post-injury administration  return-to-work policies  operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts  lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output  reduced accident severity  reduced risk assessment  standards compliance  increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables     locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.g. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.Downe (2007). heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Yet..g.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. Williams & Shabanova.5. 2003. Campbell & Williams. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 1997.

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

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

men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. p.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. 129). self-reported injury would also increase. it was also hypothesised that. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. 2. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. as well. 2004. as age decreased. MacGregor. for instance. Monárrez-Espino. darkness)” (p. for instance. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Chipman. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.5.4). Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Shope. However. Elliott. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. “In all studies and analyses. more often at hazardous times (e. Tavris. it 53 .1. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). without exception. for instance.failure to use seat-belts.g. 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. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Waller. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident.g. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).

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

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

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

there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. hierarchical. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Family centeredness. courtesy. respect for elders. peace. on crash and injury occurrence. Roman et al. In the present study. cooperation. Table 2.2). respect for elders. While religious affiliation. brotherhood/sisterhood. 1999). Karma. prosperity and integrity.. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. 2000. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. However. respect for elders. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. in fact. Conscious of what other people say about us. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Strong relationship orientation. 1999). In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. family ties. harmony with nature. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. polite behaviour. family honour. shame-driven. 2005). Spirituality. face saving. Fatalistic. cultural differences can be more subtle.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. prosperity. Strong relationship orientation. Education. Indirect communication. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. humility. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Malay Differences have not always been consistent.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. filial piety. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. religion. respect for knowledge. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. piety. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. They concluded that there were. indirectly. hard work.. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay.

as drivers become more experienced. 2. As experience grows. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.5. Allied to this. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. A large number of studies have shown that. journey lengths.behaviour in traffic. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 166).5.2 Driver Characteristics 2. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. and as such. 2002). and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Keskinen. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.g. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 2001). Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. On the other hand. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 1971). inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. etc. although not always. Lajunen & Summala. passenger distractions different vehicles. Laapotti. in a given road and traffic scenario.2. Hatakka and Katila.. 1995. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. with different weather conditions. increased experience usually. 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 . directionality of the effect was not predicted.

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

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

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

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

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. 1975. or internals.2. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2..3. 63 .5. In contrast. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Holder & Levi. and second. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.g. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. 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. she separated the externality dimension into two. or externals .5. Hyman. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.1. 1991.1 Locus of Control 2. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.5.3. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Levenson (1975. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.10). Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Stanley & Burrows. 15).3 Psychological Variables 2. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 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. 1990).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. 1999). 2006.

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

According to Brown and Noy (2004). 39). 65 . A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 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. however. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. On the other hand. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 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. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 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. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. 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. however. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. 1987). In a subsequent study. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. but results have been inconsistent. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. French & Chan.

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

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

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

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

investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). assertiveness and positive emotion. it was 70 . in a more detailed study. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Very early on. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 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. In the present study. and negatively predicted by extraversion. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 1962). Several authors. Prociuk. 1998. 1990. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. for instance. in fact. Selzer & Payne. Breen and Lussier (1976). usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1976. including risky driving. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. 1974). mental disorders and alcohol misuse.. indirectly. luck. 1962). found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. on crash and injury occurrence. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. 1997. Mendel. Firestone & Seiden. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Second. 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.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Henderson. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. 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.

sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2002). 2003.5. In a largely unrelated study. 2006). Demakakos. & Darviri. Barton and Malta. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious.. 2000. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.3. physiological arousal. and deindividuation. 1999. Richards. including subjective feelings of stress. 71 . learned cognitive scripts. Tzamalouka. 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. Deffenbacher. Malta & Blanchard. Lynch & Oetting. Filetti. 2000. 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. learned disinhibitory cues. Wright & Crundall.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 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. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 2. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Underwood. Bakou. Wells-Parker et al. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 2002. Mizell. Chliaoutaks. Koumaki. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Chapman. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard.

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

1981. on crash and injury occurrence. al. In the present study. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. insecurity about status. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 1985). Frueh & Snyder. Williams & Haney. 2000.. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving.6 2. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Sato. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Carbone. 1999. Petrilli. Lynch. Magnavita. Undén. It was also hypothesised. Deffenbacher. Kumashiro & Kume. 2006. Bettencourt et al. and specific content. 2. 1998. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Kamada. 73 . impatience. McKee. Narda. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. indirectly. 2002. 1999). Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Elofsson & Krakau. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Thurman. 2001). Blumenthal. Rice. Karlberg.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments.6. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Later still. Miyake. competitiveness. that the total amount. (2003). James & Nahl.1 Proximal Variables in the Present Research Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes The Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) has been associated with a wide range of behavioural outcomes and is perhaps the most widely publicised and popularly discussed biotype (Rice. 2006). aggression. Sani. 1999.

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

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

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

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

the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. each study explored the extent to which demographic. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). In Study 1C. Then. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 78 . each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1.2). with the addition of a third psychological variable.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.1).CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. In Study 1B.3). 1B and 1C. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. aggression (see Figure 3. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable.

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

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

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

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

g.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. and.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. the influence of driving experience. travel frequency. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.them (e. Then. Then. to the extent of inattention conditions. 3..1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.3 3. 88 . 3. 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. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. in Study 1A.2. while driving. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. 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. three demographic variables (driver age. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. In the resulting measure of this variable. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).2. (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.

the psychological variables and BIT were examined. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. In this study. travel frequency. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Finally. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. 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. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 .3 Study 1C In Study 1C. the influence of driving characteristics. Then. Then. three demographic variables (driver age. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In this study. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. travel frequency.3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Finally. Then. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Figure 3. In Study 1B. hopelessness.3.

90 . In Study 3.3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. 3. Figure 3. First. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. In Study 3. This was justified for three reasons.3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Finally.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Then. the influence of experience. 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. Finally. Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. and (b) taxi experience. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. 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. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 3. Figure 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.

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 H1.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. 3.1: 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 H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1. Second.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.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.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. Third. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.

3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity 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 H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1.Table 3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3.

and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.5 3. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. within a 14-month period. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.Table 3.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.5. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: 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. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.

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

Freeway urgency 14 III.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. On each form. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” II. to school or to an appointment with someone. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.2. Usurpation of right-ofway No. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Table 3.80.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. In a later study. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. with a coefficient alpha of . Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” “On a clear highway. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. as indicated in table 3. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.91) were found to be internally consistent. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.

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

3. 2005.2. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.3). if not. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 1993. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Durham.” “When someone really irritates me. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” 97 . I may tell them what I think of them.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. I may mess up someone’s work. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. Tanaka et al. verbal aggression. 1982.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.5. 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”. Table 3.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.” “If I’m angry enough.” “When people annoy me.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. if endorsed.2. 1974). 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.5.” “I get into fights more than most people. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. Of the 20 true-false statements. 3.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.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. Beck et al. and five subscales measure physical aggression.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 1996). or 0. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. anger. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.

1996). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. age. 3.4).71 to . 98 . gender.2. Table 3.92. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. derogation of others and revenge respectively. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.2.5. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.” 3. Snyder et al.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. . with coefficient alpha values of . 2000).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1997.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.” “I want to get back at this person. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 1997. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.88 and . Cascardi & Pythress. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.5. Williams. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 5 = “all the time”).4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.91 for physical aggression. Three factors – physical aggression. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Boyd. Shapiro.

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

each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Levenson Locus of Control scale. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 2002). 2004). Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose.0. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. BIT. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. Over the course of the trip. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Data collection took place in taxicabs. rel. At initial contact. rel. analyses of variance (ANOVA).6. as well. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.2 Study 3 For study 3. Independent-sample t-tests. aged 22 to 24 years. 3. 100 . Taxis were flagged down at roadside. The PIF was always administered first. 8.5.3. AQ and Levenson scales. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. 13. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL.5.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. four female final-year undergraduate students. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. For safety reasons. Two to four times daily.

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 H6.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.Table 3.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: “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 H3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: 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: 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: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.

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

3. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present study.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. locus of control.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. 2000).1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. 103 . hopelessness. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. In the present research.7.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. When significant differences were observed. 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. locus of control.Table 3.7.

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

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

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

112). However. pp. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.7.7. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 3.7. an insignificant p-value is expected. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 2006). 1998). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).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. the higher the probability associated with χ2. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 1998. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 107 . Thus.7. 3.10 indicate poor fit. and a measure of parsimony fit. 2006)..validation index (ECVI).7. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. Hair et al. 3.0. the normed fit index (NFI). p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. the ratio indicates a good fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 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. one incremental index.00 in which values greater than . when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model.

Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.7.7. Tanaka & Huba. with higher values indicating better fit. The index can range from zero to 1. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. The index ranges between zero and 1. 108 . an RMR greater than . and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 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. Values range from zero to 1.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.00 with value closes to 1. the normed fit index (NFI.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Bentler & Bonnet. 3. 3. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. Thus. 3..00. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00 with value more than .4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.00 being indicative of good fit.7.00.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 2006). The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.7.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.

7. in this case. Although values range from zero to 1. 1994).7. Browne & Cudeck. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. p. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 3. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.00. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. considering its fit relative to its complexity. 2006.7. 109 . 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. 2006). Like other parsimony fit indices. In such cases.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. 750). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix.00. Values range between zero and 1. It should be noted that..3. James. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.. Mulaik & Brett.7.

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

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

1% 562 57.5% 27.1: 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. Then.9% 23.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.55).1 Description of the Samples Age. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1% 34.13 years (SD = 1. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1% 536 100% 54. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.5% 57.9% Total 441 100% 45.6% 12. Table 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 121 22.1 4.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1.4% 146 14.1).9% 14.4% 269 27.4% 333 62.3% 8.5% 6.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .6% 15. with a mean age of 20.6% 82 15. 4. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).

252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.25 years (SD = 1.5 per cent).63. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20. In Study 1A.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. with a mean age of 20.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. with a mean age of 20. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.89 years (SD = 1. Thus. followed by Malay (27. range from 18 to 25).43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1C. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.53. In Study 3. range of 18 to 26). In Study 1B. In Study 2. with a mean age of 19.35. 149 taxicab drivers participated. range from 18 to 29).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.9 per cent). 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. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.68. 113 .

Table 4.5 8.65. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.4% of the sample.D.53 1.2 7.35 1. Johor or Perak made up 53.2: Age. Kuala Lumpur.9 2.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. range from 23 to 73).19 S. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.3). 1.01 20.7 4.89 20.3 11.25 43.68 1.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12. SD = standard deviation 4. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.63 11.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.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 . Table 4.1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.5 114 . they hailed from across the country (see table 4.3% of the sample. The mean age was 43.1 6.43 19.2.19 years (SD = 11.

2 3.8 5.5 1. Perak or Penang made up 50.6 100 4.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.7 11.7 100 4. As the sample was 115 .3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.8 11.0 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.1% of the sample.7 3.6 1. Table 4.4 0. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.4).Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.0 7.9 7.6 2.4 4.9% of the sample.1 9.9 0. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.5 14.1.2 17.2 2.8 9.1.

4. In the present research. 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 116 .2.2 4. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 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. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.5). 2000). no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 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. 1978).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.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.

733 .702 .890 .798 .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 .781 .782 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .783 .784 .906 .707 .703 .715 .711 .808 .786 .808 .Table 4.742 .783 .739 .824 .827 .881 α .747 .788 .887 .738 .741 .714 .830 .749 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .715 .720 .727 .735 .756 .701 .734 .727 .740 .810 .740 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .817 .730 .774 .811 .718 .754 .720 .772 α .904 .910 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .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.737 .782 .

we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.4. 1998).807 Study 1B . 1998.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 1998). confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. Table 4.876 .903 .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 .804 . The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne. and those greater than .3 Validity Test Results In the present research.6.800 .80 or above).953 . 205).801 . Byrne.958 . 1998). only Form A was used.805 .2. In Study 3.857 .929 .80.05 indicate good fit. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. values ranging from . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.916 .803 .802 4. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. RMSEA values less than .808 Study 2 .08 to . with minimal error variance caused by wording. 118 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.804 Study 1C .10 indicate a mediocre fit. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. more than .811 .804 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. depending on which is used (Byrne.2.806 .807 . 1985). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.

the higher the goodness-of-fit).90.00 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.99 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. A third statistic.00 .96 1. 4. If the value of CFI exceeds .91 . Table 4.077 .000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .00 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.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 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.000 .00 (the closer to 1.98 .97 .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 .024 . As shown in Table 4.96 .90.000 .000 .93 .054 .2. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .097 . it is possible to have negative GFI.097 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.00 .100.96 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .00 1. and destination-activity orientation.00 1.00 1.000 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.048 .00 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.074 .00 1.061 .95 1. 1992).047 .00 .97 1.99 .000 .3.000 .91 . indicating good fits.99 .99 .99 .00.098 .089 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 1.00 1.00 1.070 .97 1.98 .98 1.7.98 1.96 .92 1.00 1.92 .92 .

91 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .3.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .98 .93 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.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) .99 .97 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). RMSEA values were less than .96 .92 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.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 .92 .99 .91 .059 .2.073 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. Table 4.000 .93 .3. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.98 .96 .98 .2. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 .93 .091 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .052 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.93 .95 1.95 .063 .00 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).96 . anger (ANG).93 .92 .8.95 . verbal aggression (VER).91 .96 .100.085 .071 .085 .083 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).030 .058 .4.90.081 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.93 .096 .081 .

GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .93 .081 .97 .090 .098 .96 .97 .94 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. derogation of others and revenge. CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than . indicating good fit (see Table 4.100.083 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Table 4.10).058 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .070 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.096 .088 .98 .94 .99 .97 .025 .92 .98 .90.95 .100.088 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .97 .96 .070 .098 .2.98 .97 .9).055 .92 .98 .3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.047 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.96 .97 .97 . Table 4.(IND).073 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.089 .081 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .98 .98 . RMSEA values were less than .095 .97 .90.98 .92 .98 .95 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .

511(.719(. Table 4.140) 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 .022 (.099) 1.140) -.241(.280) -.256 (.920(. 1997).408(.410(.188(.280) .323 (.280) -. In all cases.140) .140) .146(.280) -.246(.351 (.4.280) -.428) . 2005.409(.280) -.280) -.409(.140) -.057) 1.219 (.179(.186) 1.140) .069) 1.260) .280) .11: Normality Tests.091(.107 (.560(.226 (.280) .105 (.082 (.560(.099) 1.085 (.140) -.192) 1.280) .064) 1.192(.280) .379(.140) .052) 1.140) .582(.875(. 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 1.280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) -.064(.085 (.183) 1.106) 1.453(.195 (.356 (.179(.140) .239 (.080(.656(.085) 1.280) -.140) -.140) -.140) -.278(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.05).126(.3 Normality.085) 1.037(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.154(..962 (.280) .099(.280) .280) . but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.403(.140) -.183) 1.140) -.204(.091(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) .094 (.140) -.010 (. Table 4.107) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.280) .034 (.102) 1.140) .353(.805(.140) .280) -..280) -.297(. 2006).278(.331(.332 (.064(.280) .297 (.191) 1.203(.120) 1. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) -.140) .020 (.091) 1.297(.190) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.099(.126(.

913 (.214) 1.11 (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.Table 4.219) .435) .392(.306) -.417) -.104) 1.306) .219) -.306) -.271(.417) .360) .138) 1.469) 1.533) .024 (.919 (.417) -.360) .295(.306) -.497(.210) .986 (.195 (.219) .306) -.317) 1.022 (.370(.297 (.209(.719(.463(.011 (.244(.219) .962(.153) -.053(.321) 1.110 (.062(.940(.003 (.153) .812(.423(.306) -.510) 1.153) .113 (.022 (.443(.153) .822 (.098) 1.435) -.153) .567(.219) .102) .156(.084) 1.266 (.153) .451(.128) .131(.187) 1.306) .306) -.053(.154) -.852(.098) 1.435) -.435) -.375) 1.210) .099) 1.847 (.160 (.948(.153) .210) -.030(.153) 983(.219) .070 (.247) .256(.106(.913(.359 (.978(.120(.435) -.417) -.247) 1.417) -.293 (.052) 1.435) -.210) .130(.973(306) .138(.006(.276 (.414(.713(.799(.567(.198(.972(.219) -.186(.259) .064) 1.366) 1.426) .153) .324(.354 (.048(.478(.537(.852(.277(.264) .959 (.007(.417) .962 (.135) 1.359 (.219) -.629(.360) .501(.153) .223 (.417) -.210) -.153) -.001 (.306) .088 (.300(.147(.884(.807 (.417) -.360) -.210) .952(.435) -.417) -.366(.153) .153) .911 (305) 1.210) .128 (.327 (.306) .051) 1.435) -.142(.153) .805 (.024 (.540(.210) -.417) -.279 (.210) .467(.101) 1.681(.276(.994(.270) 1.106(.503(.417) .052) 1.265) 1.147(.159(.306) .210) .979(.267) .051) .715(.338 (.106 (.210) .057) 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 .157) .915(.100) .841(.362(.417) .640(.236(.153) .

Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. For motorcycle drivers. 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. with 44.12.3 per cent being hospitalised. column c). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile 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.13). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.4. 124 . (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. However.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.12. column b). injury occurrence was much higher. column a). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12. if so.

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. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.

05). BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).5.5 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. However. Study 1B. externally-focused frustration. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.05). Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. 126 . Table 4. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. freeway urgency. in Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.17 shows means.4.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.16 shows means. and destination-activity orientation. Table 4.15 shows means. Table 4. 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 internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. All these correlations were significant (p<.05). Also. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Study 1C. crash occurrence and crash injury. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.

533** .381** .Table 4.476 .64 7.52 34.88 7.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .342** -.147* -.027 1 .376** .901** .202** .396** .D.97 43.231** .553** -.278** .209** 1 .942** 1 .339** .152** .129* .513** .76 3.316** .749** .306** .58 .544** -.186** .818** 1 .391** -.57 4.211** .516** 1 -.376** .562** -.625** .69 24.246** .5 5.662** 1 .239** .442 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .388** .434** .78 .00 165. 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.08 2.15: Means.416** 1 .566** 1 -.371** .96 19.804** .345** 1 -.04 26.340** .218** .036 .191** .2691 6.155** .435** .280** .405** .44 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.471** .482** .23 2.45 6.147* .247** .3455 .716** .22 3.201** .

213** .378** .353** .9 13 46.496** .509** .355** .86 6.855** .41 3.43 12.162** .669** 1 -.489**.521** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.176* .430** .542** .731** .140* .4960 17 .275** .82 7 13.254** .338** .310** .279** .22 4.159 -.5695 .461** .9 12 71.816** .342** .555** .372** .334** .355** .376** .518** .06 3 2.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .331** .386** .438** 1 .587** 1 -.443** .363** .584** -.514** .697** 1 .85 9.401** .586** .343** .089 -.56 2 4.444** .298** .213** .516** .276** .286* .550** .520** .540** .452** .147** .400** .382** 1 -.225** .50 5.66 3.272** .172** .434** .481** .380** .408** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.602** 1 .335** .Table 4.403** .921** .254** .343** .9 28.153** .491** .14 4.358** .254** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .028 .347** 1 -.779** 1 -.25 8 18.103 -.167** .240** .173* .762** .445** .3079 .039 .448** .440**.418** .355** .00 14 19.5 6 17.763** .816** .213** .407** 1 -.523** .236** .067 -.505** .84 7.319** .366** .69 8.688**.278** 1 -.515** .337** .103 -.48 3.847** .491** .331** .324** .150** .099 .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 .148* .84 5.178** .4624 1 -.312** 1 -.369** .200** .294** 1 .051 .462** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .411** .157** .55 9 21.028 -.268** .48 5.531** .97 4 4.071 .16: Means.341** .003 .D.271** .45 5 87.842** 1 .380** .60 10 16.414** .195** .463** .964** 1 .91 15 27.53 19.393** .013 1 .172** .

526** .38 5.17 -.095 .456** .306** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.216** .00 -.423** .183** .003 .258** .221** .31 3.592** .270** .076 .286** .838** .323** .288** .11 12.069 .158** .141* .531** 1 10 16.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .42 3.377** .082 .051 .502** .58 9.03 5.448** .277** 1 8 19.413** .91 -.320** .446** .270** .137* .64 -.310** .349** 1 16 67.296** .434** .17: Means.70 3.109 .131* .292** .277** .209** .296** .367** .402** .501 .9 -.229** .306** .378** .395** 1 11 65.7 28.277**.89 5.516 .278** .150* .379** .356** .98 4.174** .17 -.324** .230** .210**.186** .745** 1 7 13.228** .202** .49 6.03 -.304** .366** .364**.235** .747** .422 -.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .219** .293** .241** .69 -.230 .254** .343** .506** .298** .373** .70 8.119* 1 21 .148** .228** .224**.199**.199** .895** 1 13 26.D.355** .250** .230** .106 .151* .-181** .016 .565** .354** 1 5 88.392** .518** .Table 4.202** .294** .291** .340** .109 .281** .166** .37 6.368** .402** .167** .357** .508** .259** .281** .383** .348** 1 6 16.725** .428** .252** .275** .390** .530** .804** .9 -.345** .081 .192** .31 -.057 .342** .364** .221** .481** .338** .033 .385** .178** .404** .588** 1 14 20.210** .254** .36 -.103** .313** .227** .183** .7 -.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 .292** .52 7.343** .412** .191** .095 .81 5.856** 1 17 43.275** .181** .545** .401** .101**.166** .97 -.271** .422** 1 9 22.862** .075 .235** .454** .226** .387** .18 -.192**.735** .615** .151* .110 .263** .70 1 2 4.534** 1 18 19.296** .038 .424** 1 12 18.189** .308** .139** .86 -.203** .85 19.80 17.130** .265** 1 19 25.264** .212** .150* .241** .483** .185** .307**.222** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.278** .120 .67 7.451** .224** .314** .304** .78 8.183** .641** 1 4 4.218** .305** .246** .162**.484** .251** .191** 1 3 .259** .268**.302** .196** .261** .05 -.245** .189** .749** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.370** .311** .465** .81 -.193**.476** .8 -.

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

941** 1 .072 .750** .500** .413** .876** .349** .6803 .251** .Table 4.183* 1 .374** .30 .485 11.334** .06 20.D.269** .562** 1 .259** .028 1 .367** .165 .371** -.621 3.413** 1 .291** .212* .630** .18: Means.66 5.314** .76 48.580** 1 . 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.111 -.325** .383** .535** 1 .043 .233** .758** 1 .917 3.317** .415** .418** .376** .025 -.232** .150 -.50 73.5738 8.200* -.035 3.182* -.167 .192* -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.264** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .323 23.240** .66 1.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .428** .14 27.409** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .55 175.48 5.614** .219** .290** .880 .4966 1 .356** .081 8.313** 1 .122 7.139 .201* .4683 .226** .179 7.

19 shows means. In general. correlations between I and distal. As indicated in Table 4.4. Differing from Studies 1A. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 1C and 2.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. 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.19. In this study. 1B. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. standard deviations and relationships between distal. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 132 . proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.5. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. However.

618** 1 .020 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .Table 4.229** .194* 1 .604** .048 .109 -.236** .576** .2000 .378** 1 .023 .3 6.82 11.152 .268** .072 -.054 .167** .401** -.286* 1 .039 .99 10.749** .180** .067 .454** .05 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.371** .171 .443** 1 .023 -.072 .091 .82 5.35 11.025 -.091 -.254** -.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .418** .173* .197* .116 .240** .147** .622** .193* -.10 1.528** 1 .51 3.161 -.151 -.246** .271** .165 .261** .177 1 .156 .4 5.114 .028 .D.240** .235** .112 -.204* .061 .263** .65 75.13 3.561** 1 .040 .092** .816** .117 .013 .338** 1 .060 -.106 .218* .128 .19: Means.194* .071 .08 15.643** .32 7.289** 1 .11 15.658** .636** .872** .225** .018 -.095 .721** .172** .275** .103 .153** 1 .43 8.31 8.15 32.324** .257** .45 19.17 20.156 . 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 12.117 .245** .200* .166 .149 .255** .84 2.070 -.032 1 .060 .07 8.117 .404 .0301 .150** .178** .42 66.182* -.276** .141 .807** .222* .32 3.235** .853** .12 4.213** .234** .06 2.121 .588** 1 .54 11.148* .213** .88 1 .120 .030 .74 15.646** .292** .121 .149 .864** 1 .373** .521** .

01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 and Study 3: B=. p<.01 B=.135.01 Study 1B B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01).20).1). Study 1C: B=. p<.4 was not supported.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.180.01 B=. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<.01. p<. p<.063. Study 2: B=.117. p<.088 p<. For the destination-activity factor.063.01. p<. p<. These results supported H1. p<. p<.315.048.034. freeway urgency. p<.01. These results supported H1.01 B=.1.172.4.095. and externally-focused frustration.01 B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. 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=.120. p<.1 through H1. p<. p<.01 134 . p<.01 Study 1C B=.095.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.1.125.102. p<.080.01 B=.01 B=.202. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. H1.278.238.01 B=.146. but not destination-activity orientation.6.1.041.1. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.090. p<. Table 4.01 B=.01 B=.3 inclusive.01 B=.01 B=. 4.229. p<.04.

091.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. p<. freeway urgency. p<.019.140.01 B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. respectively). p<.069. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. p<.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=.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.158. p<. p<.6.24. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. These results supported H1.165.087.01 B=. p<.075 p<. Table 4. Study 1C: B=.118.21).01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=.01 B=.038. p<. p<.01 B=.095. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 Study 1C B=. p<.22.01 B=.23 and Table 4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.120. Table 4. p<.064. 135 .035.01.035. p<. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.033 p<.01 and Study 2: B=.01.05 Study 1B B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01).01 B=.074.054.059. p<.

01.88 28.48 171.32 28.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.60 185.25 5.98 33.56 175.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.50 28.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.23: 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<.43 20.35 155.92 157.64 26.600** Table 4.35 4.98 171.64 27.184** 136 .074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.77 8.25 25.82 168.Table 4.05.03 25.35 33.77 165.35 24.31 161.30 22.06 19.73 170.52 25.68 26.89 21. * p<.29 21.15 161.44 178.82 33.41 167. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.16 3.32 147.

06 160.00 14.01).39 19.73 157.Table 4. In Study 1C.77 16.01).29 15. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. and those who almost never travelled (p<.73 24.05).88 167. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.060** In Study 1A. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05).81 167.06 8.05. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01). * p<.00 16. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01. 137 .01).12 161. On the other hand.01). about once every two weeks (p<. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. In Study 2.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.01 14.52 3. In Study 1B. 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<.05).53 17.24: 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<.61 165.12 154.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.25).14 15.

50 24.81 22.01.09 15.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.27 14. In other words.68 20.52 172.31 78.33 78. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.437 (N.50 184.97 8.S.31 2. However. Table 4.58 188. 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.81 161. * p<.05.47 5. * p<.80 22. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 . Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.01.316 1.60 72.71 168. N.89 20.920 (N.528** In Study 3.64 24.65 73.S.56 3. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.37 9. However.62 10.55 73.81 175.26).82 162.74 77.55 10.05.25: 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<. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.94 20.Table 4.S) Therefore.753* 38 48 27 20 77. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.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<.381 10.26 10. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. N.63 1.859 11.

however.2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. ANOVA results for age.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.2.been predicted by H2. 1B. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. In Study 3.1 and H2. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. ethnicity and age – were investigated. For ethnicity.1 was confirmed. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. In Study 2. In Studies 1A.6. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. the lower was the total BIT score. 1B.27). 4. only H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 139 . ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 1C and 2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. only H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. though. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Again. In this case. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.

74.12. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. p<. male 140 .2 were confirmed.1 and H3. p<.05 F=11. however.81.01 F=.53. H3.3 was not supported.562.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.00.05). Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. N. p<.05. N.05.01 F=2. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=1.S.05 F=4.9.01 F=8. p<.98. p<. 1C and Study 2. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.68. N.S. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).S.99.6. In Study 1A and Study 2. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). In Study 1B. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.05).01 F=1. In Study 3. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. t(250) = 2.56.66.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. N.Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Externality-Chance (C). 4.01 F=9. Study 1B t=2. Study 2 t=3. Study 1C t=3. N. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. p<.44. p<.01 F=19.S. p<.01). In all studies. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. H3. p<.2 was confirmed. In Study 1C. p<.62. Therefore. In Study 1B.

05 and F(2. E and P scores. 119) = 5. For Studies 1A.490.05 respectively. p<.05. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.370. p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. 299) = 3. In Study 1C. In Study 2.566.503.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 141 . F(2. In Study 1B.462.05). 298) = 3. t(299) = 2.476. 299) = 5.527. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. F(2. p<.01 respectively).01). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<. t(120) = 2. 1C. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. p<. p<. In Study 1A. 298) = 6. F(2.01.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.01 respectively.05 respectively.05. 1B. 298) = 3. p<. p<. F(2.941.01). 249) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05).05 and p<.041. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05 and F(2.

t(120) = 2. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2 and H4. 4.2 and H4. However. H5. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.3. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. H4. 142 . in Study 2. H5.079. In Study 1. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3 were not supported.3. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.2.3. so H4. H4. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.1. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. were supported. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. 1B or 1C.05. H4. Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.3 was supported.1.1.6. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.2.3. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.1 and H5. In addition. p<. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.3 were supported. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.2. H4. that age influences hopelessness. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.01).Therefore.

239.01.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . Therefore. In Study 2. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness. p<.2 and H6.254. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.6.01 respectively).01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported. In Study 1C. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.290.1.1.312.01 and B = . p<.341. H6.3.01 and B = .01 and (B = . was not supported.3. p<.2 and H6. p<.371. In Study 1B. 143 .254. p<. respectively). were supported.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. H6.28). respectively). I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.354.306.342. p<. 4. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. p<.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. respectively). p<.6.4.186. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.01. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 and B = . p<.01. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.

the higher the hopelessness scores.4.01 B=.01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = .288.287.275.151. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B =. p<.01).153.141.418.191. p<.254. p<.01).151. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.415. p<.05 Study 1C B=.280. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. In Study 1C.01 B=. H7.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. freeway urgency (B = . p<.191.01 B=.275.151. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .S.01 B=.200. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01 B=.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores.01). p<.05).05 In Study 1A.01 B=. H7.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=.247. p<. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . N. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<.317. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.05) but not for freeway urgency.247.01).05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .280. p<.141. p<.2. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<. 144 .317.05).232. p<. p<.349.278. p<.153. p<.1. p<.05 B=.415.099. B=.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . In Study 1B.157. Therefore. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H7.01 B=.151. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .157. externally-focused frustration (B = .05 B=.05).254.232. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration (B = .01). p<.Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.3 and H7. p<. 1C and 2.01 B=. p<.349. was supported in Studies 1A.01 B=. In Study 2.05 Study 2 B=.287.01 B=.

p<. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.2 and H8.044.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.168.388. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). B=.006.2.S.1 and H8. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=.753. p<. N.01 B=-. Table 4.077. Therefore. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.178. p<. p<. H8. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. N. 145 .1.29). H8.01 B=. p<. where only H8. p<.208. p<.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. but not H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. provided support for hypothesis H8.01 B=.01 B=.2.297.239. B=. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.01 B=.6.229. With regard to H8. that the higher the subscale score for I.315. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.625. p<.01 B=. With regard to H8.1.336. N.1.4.01 B=-.01 B=-.3.05 B=.01 B=. p<. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the lower were mean total BIT scores.S.01 B=-.3. p<.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=-.339.

F=4.01 (see Figure 4.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.1). F=4. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<. =8. Further.272. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.01 (see Figure 4.05.1).909. p<. In Study 1C.710.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. 146 .2).581. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.01 and F=8.704.01 respectively (see Figure 4. p<. F=7. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. p<.

00 68.444. 1B and 1C. B = .9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. p<.00 66.033.05.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. multiple regression showed mixed results. First.3). hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.282. R2=.6.327.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.034. p<.00 64.00 MalaysianIndian 70. 147 .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. 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. Kurtosis=-. However.00 62. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. in Study 2. F=4.05.

p<.01. F=18.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. R2=. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.459. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B = .608. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.4).371).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=.01. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.167.463. p<.

10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.01 t=2. 4. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.01. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.690. In Study 1C. In Study 1B and Study 3.467. N. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.05 t=4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. F(2.01 t=4.677.S.690.01 t=2. p<. p<.6. p<. With motorcycle drivers.05 t=. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. N.603. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.05 respectively. however. p<.30).187. p<. p<.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. t= . Table 4. and H9.S t=2. 1C and 3.780. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.521. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.820.01 t=-. t(300) = 2. p<. 249) = 5.603. p<.480.164. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.210. p<. and t(250) = 2.S t=2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. N. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. the H9. were supported.S t=1. In both studies. However.1.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.05 Study 1C t=2.032.Therefore. N.31). p<.298.01 (see table 4.2. p<.

p<.804.S. Table 4.01 F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01). F=2.398.561.763. N.S.632.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.S. F=1. 299) = 5. In Study 1B. F=2.01 Study 3 F=1. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. N.904.57.041.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. N. N. p<.S.077. In Study 1C. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. mean IND scores of Malay.S.01).S. N. N. N. 249) = 10. N. N. F(2.S F=10.01 F=.182.432. 150 .01). F=.567.564.S.01. F=1.432. p<. F=2.S.521. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. mixed results were found.01). p<. p<.041. N.629. F=5.S. F=2.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. In Study 3. N.S. F(2. N.021.05 Study 1C F=5. F=4. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. F=1. N. F=1.05. 299) = 4. F(2. N.526. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1.S.01.422. p<.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.155.

32). H10. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.1. H10.29). that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. Therefore. H10. However. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. only H11. were supported. 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. 151 .3 and H11.Therefore. H11. respectively.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. VER and IND subscale scores. externally-focused frustration. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. freeway urgency. H11. 4.3 and H11. In Study 3.4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. however.2.6. was supported. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. The higher the total aggression scores. H11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. In Studies 1B and 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. 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 4.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. were all supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.4.

and B = . B = . Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 1C B=. p<. 1C.01.01 B=.229.505. respectively. p<.565. p<. Study 2 and Study 3.01 B=.01. p<.183. p<. p<. B = .01 B=. the higher were total BIT scores. but not in Study 3. respectively. B = . p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01. p<.01 and B = .385. and B = . Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.370. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.05 B=. Similarly.263. Also.S. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<. p<. p<. p<.01. p<.01 B=.01. B = .387. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .428.540. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. 1B. N.520. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. p<. F=3.545. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<.05 B=. p<. However.204. but not in Study 3.263.01 B=.483.S.048.01 and B = .216.370.235.01 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. p<. p<. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.01 B=.05 (see Figure 4.01 Study 3 B=. B=.01.01 B=. p<.324.01 B=.01 respectively. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.438.491.380. B = .121. B = .5). Study 1C and Study 3. Study 1C and Study 3.Table 4. p<. p<. p<.01 respectively.881. N.461.

00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. Study 1C and Study 3. R2=.316.516. B=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<.271.01. In other words.003. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.645.6.100. 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.00 42. p<. p<. B=-.362.00 44. p<.00 46. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.076.05. Kurtosis=-.01. for Study 1B. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .961.01. F=100. p<. F=81. The moderating effect of I was significant.929. and B=-.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.6.297. R2=. R2=.01. respectively.12.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Kurtosis=-.172.131.

F=91.088.507.12.069.360.606. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.757.109. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.387. p<.297. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.01. R2=. R2=. F=71. respectively).6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.271.01. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2=. In Study 1B. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.01 respectively. R2=. R2=. p<. p<.297. F=78.117.271. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. respectively).015. Kurtosis=.01 and B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.794.6).694. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01.01.369. p<. Kurtosis=-. F=94.015. Kurtosis=-. Kurtosis=.704.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. B = .897. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.431.

B = . and H12. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12. that the internality. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.1.302. 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.significant. and the moderation effect was not significant.3. Therefore.332. p<.2. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.7). H12.01 and B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. 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. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.01 respectively.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.

Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. with the sample of taxicab drivers.737. Also. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. t(250) = 3.1. F(2. H122 and H12. and about revenge F(2.05.01 but not on about the derogation of others. However.343.885.05). 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<.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Only H12.13 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. 156 .3.05).01). There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.01.314. 4.6. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. p<. 248) = 3.05. p<. 249) = 4.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.263. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. t(249)=2. p<.279. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. 249) = 5.01.

2 and H14. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.Therefore.01. externally-focused frustration. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. on total BIT score were also tested. H14. B = . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.01.413. p<.01. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. H13. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. was partially supported.277. were supported. B = . p<. B = . B = .6. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.224. H13. 157 . B = . p<. H14. p<. was supported. were supported. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. p<.01 and destination-activity orientation. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. This means that. B = . the higher the total HAT scores. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.01. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.2.01 and B = . This means that.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.3. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. was not supported. the higher were total BIT scores. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.01.1 and H13.307.364. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<. 4. p<.379.3. freeway urgency. respectively. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<.192.01. Therefore.1.394. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.

05.188.002. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.809.013.911. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. R2=. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. R2=.01.01.297. 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-Physical 158 . Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=.4.085).-554.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = .8). aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.072). also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.565. In other words.297. F=57. Physical Aggression and Revenge. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. F=55.6. p<.

Kurtosis=.33).297.475.207.294.092).3. H15.2. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 4.Aggression was significant. p<.01.026.1 and H15. F=59. However. 159 . it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. was not supported.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.246. B = . Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01. H15. R2=. was supported. were supported. p<.6. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. B = . Therefore. p<. 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. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01.

2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.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.S S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.2.S 1C P.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S N.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 3 P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.S 160 .S N.S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.S N.3.S N.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S S S N.2.S N.S P.S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S S N.2.S N.Table 4.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1.S N.S.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2.S N.S S N.S S S N.S S S S S N.S P.1.1.1.S S S S S N.S S P.S S S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.S S S S P.S S S N.S N.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S P.1.S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.

S P.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4. blank=Not Applicable N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S N. P.S 3 N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S S S S S S S N.S S S N.S P.S 161 .S S S N.S P.S N.S 2 N.Table 4.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.3.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5. N.S S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S S S S S P.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S= Not Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.S 1B N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S STUDY 1C N.S N.S S S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S= Partially Supported.S P.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S P.

N.S S S S S P.S S S N. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S 162 .2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S 2 3 P.S N.S P.S N.S S S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S= Partially Supported. P.S= Not Supported.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.Table 4.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: 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 H12.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.

Externality Chance (C). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.068 . F3. F2. F3.93 . HAT Proximal Factors F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. P I.087 . freeway urgency (F2). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.093 . F2. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. e.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.97 63. C.97 . Study 2: motorcycle driver. F3. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). AQ. HAT I. C.102 . F2. Externality Powerful-Other (P). and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.05522 . F4 F1.96 .060 Note: Internality (I). F4 χ2 49. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . 2002). AQ.045 . F2. F3. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.4. BHS I. C.96 RMSEA .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 8.90 110. freeway urgency. F4 F1. two were worthy of further examination.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. P.00000 .f. F4 F1. F3 F1. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.00000 . BHS. F2. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. F3.58 35.80 104. P. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. 163 .93 . 4. AQ. C. P. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P.38 100.93 . Hopelessness (BHS). Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.00000 . C.00111 . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). HAT I. Hopelessness.7. Table 4.34.g.02 d. Aggression (AQ). AQ I. C. P.00126 . BHS. F2. 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. F4 F1.

23 respectively (see Figure 4. To aid this discussion.043. GFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.97.13.=24.26.14. . 5. An alternate model. For Model C5.22 respectively (see Figure 4. but not as good as for C5.=33. ECVI=. Externality (Chance). The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. RMR=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. with path coefficients = -. and PGFI=.10). CFI=.51 and PGFI=.91.26.48. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. ECVI=.42.94. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.98). . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. values were: NFI=. For Model C6. Externality (Powerful-Other). GFI=.29 and . Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. AGFI=. C6. CFI=. 164 . goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. RMSEA=.02. .97.97.28 and .destination-activity orientation (F4).35.5. Externality (Powerful-Other). with path coefficients = -. d. d.42.92) on accident involvement. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. . RMR=. which are detailed in sect.92) on accident involvement.045. Externality (Chance).060. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. . of the BIT score. RMSEA=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. . AGFI=.32.f.f.96.96.3. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. For Model C6.043. For Model C5.10).

045 RMR=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.79* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.51* .f =24 CFI=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.57* Injury Occurrence .32* Externality (Chance) .92* Accident Involvement . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.97 GFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.99 P-value = .29* Aggression (AQ) .63* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .97 d.

77* .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.29* Aggression (AQ) .02 GFI=.98 P-value = .50* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.060 RMR=.56* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .96 d. *p<.39* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.58* Injury Occurrence .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.92* Accident Involvement .63* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.31* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.f =33 CFI=.

73 169. HAT-D. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .f.91 . VER. HAT-R PHY. freeway urgency (F2). HOS.=61. Hostility (HOS). HAT-D.93 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. 167 .41 d.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HAT-D. F3 F1.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. F3.00000 . F4 χ2 108.91 . Indirect aggression (IND). F3. HAT-P. IND. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HAT-P.In addition. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HOS. F2. CFI=. IND. F4 F1. F2.10. ANG.f.66 131. Angry (ANG). ANG. HAT-R PHY.65 and .078.41. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. d.91 .081 .35). HOS. VER. ANG. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.66). HAT-D. IND PHY.084 .00111 . The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.91. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Verbal aggression (VER). F2.084 . IND. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.00000 . F2. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.00000 .00000 GFI RMSEA .80) on the accident involvement. VER. RMSEA=. F3 F1. Aggression (AQ).66 153. HAT-R PHY. ANG. GFI=.95). HAT-P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2. HOS.080 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). HOS. IND. path coefficients = . HAT-P.13 respectively.94 169. 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). F3.92 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F4 F1. ANG.

66* .61* .05 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.078 RMR=.63* Indirect Aggression .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.f =61 CFI=.80* Accident Involvement .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .91 d.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .83* .58* . *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .29* Hostility .41 GFI=.95 P-value = .000 N=252 RMSEA=.72* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.65* .69* Anger . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.62* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .

86 23 28 23 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.07580 . C.33 33. F2. BHS I. Hopelessness (BHS).06722 .047 . F4 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P).f. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. RMSEA=.98). 169 . CFI=.12 d. P.2 Study 2 In Study 2. F2.95 .=28. p-value GFI RMSEA I. 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. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. C. C. F3.4. BHS F1. the participants were motorcycle drivers.94 .047. Externality Chance (C). F4 39.80 respectively (see Figure 4.7.f. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).12). GFI=. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).062 Note: Internality (I).66) on the accident involvement.65 and .94 . path coefficients = -. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F3. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.17631 . F2. P I. F3 F1. P. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.12. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.058 . d. freeway urgency (F2).36).94.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.

12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .88* Crash Occurrence .89* .70* BIT4 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .57* Internality -.95 d. *p<.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.047 RMR=.17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.f =23 CFI=.99 P-value = .12 GFI=.65* Externality (Chance) .78* .83* BIT3 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.

P Proximal Factors F1.39. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). 37. C. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). but not Externality.f. C.37). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.061. F3. C.22 23 . d.95 . F2.59 17 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. Internality and AQ.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.35265 . AQ F1.03084 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. AQ F1.06743 . I. AQ F1. F3. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.95.39 21 . F3. Externality Chance (ExC).82 28 .4.f.20 respectively (see Figure 4. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).=21.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. CFI=. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F2. F2. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. RMSEA=. path coefficients = -. P.97 . C. freeway urgency (F2).079 Injury Occurrence I.027 I.40) on the accident involvement. F3. F4 50. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.95). F2. Hopelessness (H).061 Note: Internality (I). the participants were taxi drivers. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.94 . 171 .00524 . GFI=. P.7.20 and .93 .3 Study 3 In Study 3.13).

13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39 GFI=.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .74* -.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =21 CFI=.95 d.06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13 .63* BIT3 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .061 RMR=.20* Externality (Chance) .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. *p<.95 P-value = .61* BIT4 .39* Internality -.

4.8.8. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 173 . 4. Therefore. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.2 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. and.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.39). (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).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. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 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. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.38).8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Table 4.

in Studies 1A. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.40). Table 4.8.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4. 1B and 1C.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.41). where the 174 .8.

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

Study 2: t(421)= 7.9. p <. 176 . Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.665. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= -3.01.01. p <.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).05. p <. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(372)= 8. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.663. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -4.837. p <.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1B vs.01.Table 4. Study 1A vs.01. Study 1A vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.442. Study 1C vs.162. Study 1C vs. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. 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 2.426. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.993. Study 1B vs. p <. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(422)= -2.

704.261. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. t(986)= 30.577. Study 1C vs. t(253)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= -6.186. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(986)= 3. Study 2: t(422)= -6.402.200.861. p <. p <. p <. p <. p <. p <.01.775. p <. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. t(986)= 34. Study 2: t(372)= -7.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. respectively. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 1C vs. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.433. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs.01.01.837. Study 2: t(421)= -8.687.01. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(986)= 5. Study 2: t(421)= -7. “freeway urgency”. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.9.01. 177 .01.01.01. t(253) = 2. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 7. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.614.01. p <. 4. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. Study 1A vs. p <.9.01.01. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.801.926. Study 2: t(421)= -3.484.01.01. and to injury occurrence. 4. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <.01. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <. p <.977. and t(986)= 35. t(986)= 6.01. Study 1B vs. t(986)= 37.747. Also.01.01. Study 1B vs.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.211. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. p <.01. p <.

p <. t(253)= 39. respectively.016. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. and t(253)= 37.977.01and to injury occurrence. t(253)= 31. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 11. p <.01. p <. p <. “freeway urgency”.01.01.01. t(253)= 8. p <. Also.982. 178 . and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.737.01. t(253)= 35.946.881. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.567.01.

2. 1995. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 2002b). in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. 1993. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.4.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. 2. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.. freeway urgency.1). Evans. 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. Elander et al. including gender. al. upon examination. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . 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. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 1991). Often. In an earlier study. multi-factorial perspective. Elander et. They found gender. (1993).

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

… 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

it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.16. SD=22. They were also more experienced (266. Inclán.6 months as licensed drivers. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. By virtue of their age and occupation. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. Because of occupational demands. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. respectively). the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. respectively). For taxicab drivers. SD=11. and 36.1 months. there are other possible influences. SD=. 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.2 years. In the present study.53. SD=131.5.3. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. For taxicab drivers. as well.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.25 years.hierarchy. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. 5. 20. SD=1. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.63. Of course. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.1. SD=1. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.01years. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.7 months.

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

Nandy.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. Salih &Young. by extension. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Gomez. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.5% annually from 9. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. as a group.3. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1999). In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 5. and. 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.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. as a result. Again. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1999.5 million in 1991 to 11. an internal locus of control. 1966. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . 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. including locus of control. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. Sendut. 1981).8 million in 1996. 1998. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Indeed. 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. but two possible influences stand out.7 in 1996. 2002. 1999. where Cheung et al.

women’s friendship patterns. Clayton. more recently. 2000. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. feeling more frustrated at external sources. including perhaps attributions about the control of events.4 Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. Parkinson. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Dukes. Lawton & Nutter. Lynch. 2002). 2003. 2008. 5. Nonetheless. 2002. Miller & Rodgers. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 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. by the enraged driver. 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. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Jenkins. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 318). 2001) In the present research. bringing them closer together in outlook. Huff. Miles & Johnson. 2001. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. King & Parker. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Oetting & Salvatore. Consistently.

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

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

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

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

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

model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2006). (2004) noted that. Shook et al. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. GFI. when assessing the fits of measurement models. Therefore. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following:      The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. etc) 196 .e.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. In the present research. Shook. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. Sümer (2003) added that. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model.5. TLI. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.5. CFI. Ketchen. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Williams et al. Hair et al. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2004) has been critical of most studies. SRMR. as suggested by Hair et al.e. 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. and the root mean square residual were included. the goodness of fit index (GFI). the comparative fit index (CFI). (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models.

but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. Fit index values (e.In the present research. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2001. 2000). Hair et al.. Sambasivan & Ismail. GFI. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . RMSEA lower than . it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. we would argue. 2006.90.g. 1998.5.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. CFI. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. As a general rule..3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. 5. Md-Sidin. CFI and CFI) greater than . Maruyama.. Structural equation modelling should. 2001. 1998). significant p-values can be expected. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. It is argued here that. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. At the same time. 2006).08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.

More importantly. statistical.soundness. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. 4. destination-activity orientation. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. 88). 1C5 and 1C6. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. two structural equation models. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. However. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices.3). provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. as suggested by Byrne (2001). they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. and practical considerations (p. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. stating that. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . 158). Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. In some cases. In the case at hand. Thus.1. There is some support for this position in the literature.10) excluded the fourth factor. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect.7. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical.

BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.045 0.97 0.42 11.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. AQ.94 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.96 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.909 0.034 97. C.02 0.499 0.060 0.043 129. F2. AQ. P.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. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 0.98 0.02 0. F2.48 30. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Injury Occurrence 35.Table 5. 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. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. 199 .99 0. C.02 0.

farther along. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. 2006. Manstead & Stradling.. 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. Nahn & Shapiro. in this analysis. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 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. they should be dropped.1). However. Storey. it is 0. in particular. Hair et al. based on the notion that each variable included may. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. 1995. Kayumov. Schwebel. 2006). while for Model 1C6. By selecting Model 1C5. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. et al. 1996).42.48. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. but still acceptable. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. goodness-of-fit. 200 . Reason.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1990. Parker. For practical reasons. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.

23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .6. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. . 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. freeway urgency. Evans. externality-chance. with five distal factors (internality. aggression.26.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. and hostile automatic thoughts). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Rothengatter. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. externality-powerful other.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.1). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .45). Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.28 respectively). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.21).5.35 and .29). .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. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.28 and . 2001. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. on crash outcomes.35. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.14. externalitychance. Sümer. 2003).5. externality-powerful other. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.5. . The results suggested that the alternative model.66). crash occurrence (r = -. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. In Study 1C.34) and injury occurrence (r = . for automobile drivers sampled. externally-focused frustration. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.g. 1991.4. via BIT.

and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.24). One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. externally-focused frustration. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. 5. externality-chance.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.4.55). with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. freeway urgency. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggression. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. which sampled motorcyclists. crash occurrence (r = .23) and injury occurrence (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).20) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. had a better fit than other alternative models. externally-focused frustration. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.66) directly predicted crash outcomes.65 and . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. 202 . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.25).41).5. on the other hand. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. Results indicated that the first alternative model.

aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other and aggression). had a better fit than alternative models. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. For motorcyclists. such as internality. Results indicated that the third alternative model. freeway urgency.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.5. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence. freeway urgency. externality-chance. with four distal factors (internality. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. aggression). for crash outcomes. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.5. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. to measure outcome.5. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. with the sample of taxicab drivers. Finally. for the sample of taxicab drivers.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. hopelessness. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.20 and . This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. had no significant effect on BIT scores. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. externality-chance. However. via BIT. their crash occurrence. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. in turn and indirectly. 4. Distal factors.3). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway.4. 5. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. as a result. crash occurrence.6. 203 . externality-powerful other.

Further. 2004). both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.6. 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. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. however. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. Sekaran (2003) points out. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. In the present research. 278279). 204 . a total of five samples were taken. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. To a large extent. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. chosen at random from taxi stands. 2005). 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.6 5.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge.5. Huguenin. 2005.

Since. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. 205 . involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Sabah. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.55). the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.6%. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.2% and Study 2: 99. The most populous state.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. as elsewhere. Selangor.In Malaysia. Study 1C: 99. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented.2%). in Malaysia. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. with a mean age of 20. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.6% (Study 1A: 99. Study 1B: 100%. Table 5.2).31.13 years (SD = 1. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. 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. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.

9 (3) 2. Table 5. 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. For that reason.887.000 Per cent of national population 26.2 (13) 11.6 2. in this case.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.5 (4) 4.7 (14) But. Table 5.1 (7) 8.9 (9) 7.5 (8) 3.188 1.000 3.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.500.0 12.576 2.300.6 5.396. and there are different crash frequencies in each one. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.2 3.387.000 1. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.8 (6) 6. Not all states have the same number of drivers.503.150.0 8.200.2 (1) 3.100.818.4 5. 206 .2 (5) 0.2 7.500 1. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.6 0.807 733.000 215.0 4.674 1.000 2.2 (11) 12.286 1.2 11.3 (12) 11. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.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) 7.000 2.004.260.6 6.000 1.880 3.8 6.Table 5.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.9 9. In both cases.6 (10) 7.7 (2) 2.

76 3.55 7.89 3.28 3.43 2.19 4.251 324.Table 5.029 273.35 4.37 3.68 7.13 6.98 0.428.05 2.19 7.93 0.588.198 156.22 17.50 29.45 9.20 12.026 10.606 24.635 1.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.36 8.093 5.75 4.16 2.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.88 3.064 9.93 9.24 0.003 10.91 2.24 2.70 3.46 8.144 12.212 39.97 12.34 3.496 187.85 1.4 4.104 6.63 207 .725 70.84 11.774 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 12.70 12.768 6.137 698.735 165.27 14.230 266.170 13.467 25.163 10.561 1.19 3.041 92.96 3.490 525.90 5.920 181.92 25.617 10.600 135.88 2.785 393.34 11.

88 2.33 4.49 0.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.725 70.35 4.958 % 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 12.856 310.88 3.305 276.212 39.467 25.03 4.104 6.38 0.029 273.79 13.170 13.727 161.59 1.288 444.10 9.003 10.561 1.026 10.02 10.679 90.64 2.82 9.989 6.49 12.92 25.4 4.74 208 .Table 5.617 10.48 1.656 821.722 255.63 11.46 14.43 2.28 3.64 1.38 4.45 2.606 24.14 7.221 36.59 12.02 7.46 5.27 14.63 13.112 347.768 6.75 5.98 0.15 5.22 3.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.992 776.76 3.615.283 770.36 8.995 233.20 15.064 9.93 7.133 705.37 3.66 11.144 12.93 9.

At least on these dimensions. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.814** 1 .903** .824** . it can be argued that they were.3 and 5. 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. Table 5. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Of course.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations. it is possible to say that sampling.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. was representative of a high risk driver population.4. participants came from – or. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .Table 5. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. at least. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.

the data has to be disaggregated.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. accidents. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Much important data is available in official statistics. demographic factors. 2001). (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . None of these variables can be substituted by group means. e. 296). Again. in studying driving behaviour. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. violations and accidents should be linked together.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). Elander et al. as in other psychological research. 1979). 1998. We can also get rough data of exposure by age.g.. Hatakka. attitudinal factors. Exposure. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. 5. unless the variation within the group is very small. Keskinen. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. However. Rothengatter. 1998. 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. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.6. however. The problem. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. accident distributions by age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. or legal intervention. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. education. 1961. 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. Unlike 100 years ago.4). 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. World Health Organisation. Slinn.5. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1). for the last fifty years.4.4. 1957).7. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. At the same time. 1957. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. teams of humans.7. and machines are highly intricate (p. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. From this has emerged the growing 221 .7. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. N6).4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. was studied in a 230 . 265). one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. from the findings of the present research. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 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. The bias of false consensus. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective.5. that “Of these three approaches. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. 1030). They also stated. 2007. 1978. First.4. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. such as visibility of enforcement. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. or an internal locus of control. however. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. Second. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. legal measures change least often. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. p.7.

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

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

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

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

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

a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. 236 . regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. management. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 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. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. 313). Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. Indeed. In the present research. educational and enforcement spheres. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. all the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months.8. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. When you want to use a motorcycle. 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. most of the time ___ no 11. some of the time ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.

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

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.