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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. as well. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. As hypothesised. The role of the proximal variable. Among distal variables. BIT. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. viii . consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. As reported in previous studies. 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. 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. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Results indicated that.

2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.4.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1.4 1.1 Concepts.3.3.1.3 1.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2.4 Risk Theories 2.3.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2.3 ix .2 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2.2 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.5 1.2.3.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3.1 1. Theories and Models 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.

2.1. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1 Experience 2.5.2.1 3.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.5.4 Hopelessness 3.3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.6 2.3.2.5 2.3.1 Demographic Variables 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.5.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5.1.9.4.1.5.3 Locus of Control 3.4.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.5.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.3 Ethnicity 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.1.3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.3.2.4.2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.3.7.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Hopelessness 2.2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1.6.4.5.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.4.3.2.1 Statistical Models 2.5.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.2 Process Models 2.4 2.4.2.5.4.2.3.2.2 Gender 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.1.4.6.5.5.3.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.3.1 Age 2.3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 Locus of Control 2.

2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.2.7.2.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.7.5.7.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.1 Study 1A 3.3.7.2.5 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.1 The Sample 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 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 .5.2.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.2.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.5.6.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.7.4 Study 2 3.6 3.3.7.4 3.5.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.6.7.2 Study 1B 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.2.5.3.5.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2.5.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.5.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.3 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.3.7.2.7.3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.7 3.2 Research Instruments 3.7.3 Study 1C 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.

1 Internality as a Moderator 4.1.1 Results of Study 1 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.2.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.5.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.4 4.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.6.1.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2.3 4.6.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.1.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 4.3.6.2.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.6.5.2.2.6.3 Validity Test Results 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.12.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.3.6.1 Age.12.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 4.5.6.6.1.6 xii .CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.3.

8.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.4.8.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.4.3.6.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.7 4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.3.4 5.7.1 Study 1C 4.6 xiii .8.9.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.6.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.5.3.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.9.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.7.6.9.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.4.8 4.7.5.6.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.8.4.5 5.2 Study 2 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.5.2 5.5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.

4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7.7.7.4 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 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4.4.1 Theory vs.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.3 Driver Selection. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Education 5.7.4.5.7.4.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7.7.6.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.

3 114 4.11 xv .8 111 121 121 122 4.7 4.1 2.5 4.2 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.4 115 117 118 119 4.6 4.2 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.1 4.5 4.3 3.LIST OF TABLES No.10 4. Table Page 2.3 3.4 3.9 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age. 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. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.1 3.

27 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.20 134 4.12 4.24 137 4.18 131 4.19 133 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.29 xvi .16 128 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 4.13 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.22 136 4.28 4.21 135 4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.17 129 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.25 138 4.23 136 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 .4 208 5.2 5.30 4.39 4.35 4.32 4.37 4.31 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.5 209 225 5.1 199 206 207 5.3 5.34 4.4.41 175 5.36 4.33 4.

2.1 3.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.6 2.3 3.3 4. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 3. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 1996.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.9 59 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.4 2.4 148 xviii .3 2. Hatakka.1 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.7 2.2 147 148 4.2 2.4 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 4.

8 4.12 4.7 4.5 4.4.9 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 4.13 xix .6 4.

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

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

According to Dewar (2002b). This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.112).2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. The chapter 1. 1983).790. There was a total of 341. 21).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. including the study of a large number of variables. 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. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 1989). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “the literature on personality has a long history. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2004. 2007). p. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. A total of 10. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. However. 2003). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.351. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.roadway. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 2002. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2 .732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. locus of control. McKenna.332 drivers and 15. 2005).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

741 38.395 2006 6.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.815 2005 328.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.98 deaths per 10. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.653 2004 326. 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.885 35.20 deaths per 10. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.417 47.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.2).645 54.200 9. Subramaniam & Law. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.218 2005 6. Generally.425 5. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Table 2.236 49. 2003.415 52.000 vehicles (Law.287 in 2006. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.425 2003 6. 2007). Abdul Rahman.040 2004 6. 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.287 9.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. in Malaysia. & Wong. This suggests that studies.7111 2003 298. from 189. Radin Umar.552 37.891 8.304 in 1994 to 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.228 9.264 2006 341.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 2005). 2005). Studies 13 .286 9.000 vehicles in 2006. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2005). In Malaysia.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.091 37.012 19. Table 2. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.

It has been reported that.56 3.025 9.953 17.65 2.50 979 4.378 11.71 543 2. and particularly among younger drivers.81 3. 2006). with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.4 billion to RM5.41 302 1. or about 2.15 572 2. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.06 608 3.05 1. 2002.086 9.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.16 90 0.40 1.034 4.81 1.82 1.81 2.05 2.431 7.54 708 3. 2001.90 159 0. 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. or an average of RM4.205 11.803 9.67 206 0.22 150 0.709 8.68 3.07 2.038 13. Morrison & Ryan.99 164 0.023 5.216 10.65 121 0.15 43 0.23 2.593 11.77 3.47 280 1.92 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.94 625 3.551 12.31 3. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.29 2.309 10.48 323 1.85 2. Table 2.76 22.94 1.947 10.48 105 0.7 billion.08 541 2.84 1.921 100 20.85 147 0.61 99 0.967 100 19.418 100 19.29 708 3.07 2.10 3.180 10. 2001).91 984 4.08 585 2.97 1.110 10. 14 . in 1999 alone.27 458 2.315 17.26 463 2.049 15.448 17.820 13.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.997 14.178 15.80 203 0.72 554 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. general insurers paid RM1.005 15.67 billion.92 2.94 2.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. Palamara.08 2.63 160 0.11 2.416 6.49 450 2.05 2.08 1.21 3.341 12.15 3.45 30 0.37 337 1.469 15.620 7.64 135 0.389 6.68 128 0. 2005). 2003).

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

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

general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Ward. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Bartle & Truman. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. (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. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. This is. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. In the same study. Radin Umar. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. injuries and fatalities. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Law. perhaps. 1996). however. 2007). Musa. Chalmers & Langley. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. conspicuity and excessive speeding. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. respectively. 2.1. rather than personality factors. 17 . was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. For instance.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Law et al. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. In a separate study. Ahmad Hariza. In none of the studies of the MSP. Mohd Nasir.

Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error. since 1994. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 110). The very monotony of the road surface.122). 121-122). generalising to all driving environments and situations. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. however. This. He argued that. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. According to Williamson. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p.Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. has linked peninsular communities. 1996). resulted in a myriad of problems. they are accident prone. 18 . 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. the factor that made the high speeds possible. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 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. 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. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.

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

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

Preston & Harris.2. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 1993). 2002.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 21 . 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. 321). Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 2003).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. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. the lack of replication of many studies. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 2005).2. 2003). 1997a). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. information processing. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2. 1961. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 1996. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. Nevertheless. there has been an interest in driver personality. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. Underwood & Milton. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. 482).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So. therefore. pp. Stolk. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey.3. Pijl.sports. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p.. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . 1980. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. Visser. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.3. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 2.05. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. sports and family settings. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Ultimately. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 562). roadway. 8-9). it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. 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. The concept itself is ill-defined. 1993). but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 1998). Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person.

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

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

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

increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. after a similar review. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. p. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. 26). In other words. 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. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. At this point.4. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Summala. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 81). a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 2004. 92). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. In addition. or expecting. 1987.3.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. and 34 .2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. for example. 2. Rather.

On the other hand. much of which arises from personality. 2. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. age and social variables. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1999). Reeder et al. Gregersen.learn how to respond safety to. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. Summala (1996. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Hataaka. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 35 . such as time pressure. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious.1). In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. as a result. 1998. Keskinen. Meijman & Roghengatter.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. A large number of studies show that external motives. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Van der Hulst. and specific driver actions. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2.3. 1996. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. 2002. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. for instance.

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

this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 2000) 37 .g.3.. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Most of the time.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. affective states). However. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. Fuller (2000. 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. 252). high speeds. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 1982.1). Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.

largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 2004.3.Fuller’s theory has. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 126). According to the TRA.3. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.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. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. however. Fishbein & Ajzen.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment.6. time pressure). emotional state. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 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. 1985. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . objects. and Keskinen et al. Two limitations have been noted. 40). p. p. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. Since 1985. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 1991). for the most part. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 2. Generally. institutions or issues (Chaplin. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 1985.

3. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).2). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. According to the TPB.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). however (Sharma & Kanekar. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 24). 2007). 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”). 2. then. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. see Figure 2. To deal with this uncertainty. “Even very mundane activities.7. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). p. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty.” (Azjen. 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”). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 1985. 39 . are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control.

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

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

2.1 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). More recently. within specific situational contexts. the road (R) and the environment (E).g. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1997.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. R.locations and settings (e. Richardson & Downe.4. 1994). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. the vehicle (V).4. 1998. Koonchote & Tantiratna. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Seow & Lim.2 Process Models 2. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Law. however. E and especially H factors. 2000). Mahasakpan. Swaddiwudhipong. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.2. Nguntra.4). 1997) 42 . 1999)..

Within the generic model. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. extraversion. sensation seeking. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. 283). contribute directly to crash outcomes.g. age. By contrast. it may influence crash risk through some other. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.2. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. 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. on one hand..5). speeding. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. more proximal variable.g.. substance abuse) that.2. gender. aggression). or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.4. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies. on the other hand. Therefore. Personality factors within the 43 . arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.g. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. as well.. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. Factors within the distal context include not only road. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.

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

6(i). In Figure 2. called the outcome. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. such that path c′ is zero. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). for instance. 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.4.2.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 1986). 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. 45 . Figure 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable.2. Tix and Barron. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 2006). in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. M. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. 2003). 2004). which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. moderating or mediating effects. Also termed intervening variables. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. If.

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

He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. anger).2. more relevant to the model he proposed. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. he found that. and non-professional students who were mostly students. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. anxiety. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. psychoticism).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. Further. hostility. However. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. In turn. 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. hostility. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. Using structured equation modelling. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. dangerous drinking).4. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. verbal aggression. given wide 47 . errors).

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

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

but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1. Type A. Williams & Shabanova.5 2. Yet.. 2003. 1997.8). 2007) 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .g. 2003).Downe (2007). aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.g. Campbell & Williams.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5. Weinstein & Solomon. Retting.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe... Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. 1995). proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5. 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. 2002. Odero et al. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.

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

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

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

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

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

finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. To a large degree. 2005). reported few differences between Australians and Finns. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities.2.5. Lajunen. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . differences in fatalities persisted. On the other hand. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U.S.1. Schlundt. But. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Summala and Hartley (1998). Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. In one of the few studies reported. nonCatholic countries. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Haliburton. Corry.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Romano. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. for instance. Harper. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Levine. Goldweig and Warren. lower rates of safety belt use. Marine. Garrett.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holder & Levi. 1999). 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. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Hyman. or externals . according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.5. she separated the externality dimension into two. 1975. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. In contrast. 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. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. and second.1. 1991.g.10). Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966..3. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Levenson (1975. 1990). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first.3 Psychological Variables 2. 15).5. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). 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.5.2. Stanley & Burrows. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. or internals.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. 63 .3.1 Locus of Control 2. 2006.

According to Phares (1976). luck.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.1. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. Sinha & Watson.3.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. 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.5. 1989.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.Luckner. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. 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. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 64 .

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

cognitive. 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). offences. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. That is. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Arthur et al. In an important study. although internality was unrelated to DDB. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. (p. 1260). Gidron. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. In a much earlier study. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 .Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. On the other hand. They found that. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes.

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

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

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

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

Deffenbacher. Wright & Crundall. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 2006). 2. In a largely unrelated study. 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. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.3. Wells-Parker et al. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 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. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Chapman. 2002.5. 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. Barton and Malta. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Demakakos. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 1999. 2003. physiological arousal. learned cognitive scripts. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Underwood. including subjective feelings of stress.. Koumaki. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Richards. Chliaoutaks. 2000. and deindividuation. Lynch & Oetting. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Mizell. Tzamalouka. 2000. 2002). & Darviri. learned disinhibitory cues. Filetti. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Malta & Blanchard. 71 . Bakou.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter.2).1). driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. 78 . the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). aggression (see Figure 3. with the addition of a third psychological variable. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. each study explored the extent to which demographic. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3.3). In Study 1B. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 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. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 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. In Study 1C. 1B and 1C.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers.

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

consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. overlapping and ambiguous. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. but not chance. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. In the present research. Lester and Trexler (1974). a thought process that expects nothing. 1999).5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).2.2. affective. 25). cognitive. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 .each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. a separate score for internality (I). For the purposes of the present research. For each of the five studies undertaken. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. 3. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. 1994). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. 3. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. Weissman.

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

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

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

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

In Study 3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. 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. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. In Study 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. 3. 3. Then. and (b) taxi experience. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Figure 3. the influence of experience. Figure 3. Finally. This was justified for three reasons. 90 . or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. First. 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.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Finally. Then. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.3. Figure 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.

Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Third.2. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on 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 H2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.1. Second.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1. 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.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. 3.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.

1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.3: 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 Hopelessness H5.3: 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 H10.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.Table 3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.

2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. using the same procedures as in Study 1.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. within a 14-month period.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. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .5 3.5. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. 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.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.Table 3.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.

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

” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. On each form. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . In a later study. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.2.91) were found to be internally consistent.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” “On a clear highway. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. with a coefficient alpha of .on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. to school or to an appointment with someone. 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. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Table 3.” II. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. as indicated in table 3.80. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually feel like pushing them off the road. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Freeway urgency 14 III.

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

1993.” “When people annoy me. Durham. anger. if not. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “When someone really irritates me.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.5. 3. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. verbal aggression. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 1996).5. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. or 0. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. I may tell them what I think of them. Of the 20 true-false statements. 1982. Table 3.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. if endorsed. 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”.2. I may mess up someone’s work. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.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. 1974). Beck et al.3.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.3). Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.” 97 . Tanaka et al.” “I get into fights more than most people. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. 2005. and five subscales measure physical aggression.” “If I’m angry enough.

ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. with coefficient alpha values of .” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .88 and . 2000). 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Snyder et al. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. gender.71 to . 1997. 3.4).” “I want to get back at this person.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. age.5.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. Williams. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Three factors – physical aggression.92.5.91 for physical aggression. . Table 3. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.” 3. 98 . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. derogation of others and revenge respectively.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Cascardi & Pythress. 5 = “all the time”).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1996). Boyd.2. 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. 1997. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Shapiro.

6 3. BIT scale and AQ. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. BHS. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Study 1B: PIF. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. BIT scale.3.6. in random order. Levenson. Levenson. BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. between the two forms of the BIT. 99 . Levenson and BIT scale.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. AQ and HAT. After the briefing period. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. with an e-mail summary of results. In studies 1 and 2. upon request. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Study 1C: PIF. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. BHS.

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

3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: 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 H3.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.Table 3.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: 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 H6.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.

the higher the BIT level H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other). the lower the BIT level H8.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: The higher the Internality.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: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.Table 3.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.

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. hopelessness.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. In the present research.Table 3. 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 3. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control.7.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.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. 103 .2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. When significant differences were observed.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. 2000). In the present study. hopelessness.

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

“1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.7. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. SEM was carried out. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.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. 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. 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). and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.7 Structural Equation Modelling. 710). as well as between several latent constructs” (p. In the present research. logistic regression. 3. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred.7. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes.3. using LISREL. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. on the other hand. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. That is. In the present research.

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

7. the higher the probability associated with χ2.0.7. 3. Hair et al. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.validation index (ECVI). 1998.7. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.1 Chi-Square (χ2). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). one incremental index. 2006). Thus.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. 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.10 indicate poor fit. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. 1998). 2006). 112). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 3. the normed fit index (NFI). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7.. 107 . the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).7. and a measure of parsimony fit. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. an insignificant p-value is expected. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. However. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. the ratio indicates a good fit. 3.00 in which values greater than . pp.7.

. 2006).Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.7. Bentler & Bonnet.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. an RMR greater than .00.00 with value more than .00.7.7. 3. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. 108 . Tanaka & Huba.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. 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. 3.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.7.00 being indicative of good fit. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7. with higher values indicating better fit. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. The index ranges between zero and 1. The index can range from zero to 1. 3.00. Thus.00 with value closes to 1. the normed fit index (NFI. Values range from zero to 1.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.

it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. p. considering its fit relative to its complexity. Browne & Cudeck. Like other parsimony fit indices. James. 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. 3. Values range between zero and 1. 2006. 109 . 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.7. Although values range from zero to 1.7.. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. 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. 1994). The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.3. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.00. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. in this case. It should be noted that. 2006). “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 750). Mulaik & Brett.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. In such cases.7. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.7..8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.

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

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

1% 562 57. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.6% 82 15.5% 6. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1 4.3% 8. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.13 years (SD = 1.1 Description of the Samples Age. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. with a mean age of 20. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1).5% 57. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.55). 4.9% 23.6% 12.6% 15.4% 146 14. 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 4.9% 14.1% 121 22. Table 4. Then. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.4% 269 27.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1% 34.1% 536 100% 54.9% Total 441 100% 45.1: 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 33.5% 27.4% 333 62.

25 years (SD = 1.53.35.5 per cent).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. In Study 1C. with a mean age of 20. Thus. In Study 1B. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 19. 113 . A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.89 years (SD = 1.01 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25). with a mean age of 20.9 per cent). 149 taxicab drivers participated.68. followed by Malay (27.63. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 29). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.43 years (SD = 1. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. range of 18 to 26). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. In Study 2. In Study 1A. range from 18 to 27). In Study 3.

responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.D. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. range from 23 to 73).2.35 1.2 7.25 43.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Table 4.43 19.3). Table 4.5 8. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.01 20.4% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.65 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 .2: Age.3 11. The mean age was 43.5 114 .19 S.65.89 20. 1. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.53 1.7 4.19 years (SD = 11.1. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. Johor or Perak made up 53.3% of the sample.9 2.3: 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. Kuala Lumpur.63 11.1 6.68 1. SD = standard deviation 4.

7 100 4.1.8 5.1 9.8 11.9 0.4 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.1.2 17. As the sample was 115 . Table 4.8 9.6 100 4.4 4.7 11. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.5 14. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.6 2.4).Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.2 3.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.4 0.0 7.5 1.2 2.9% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.6 1. Perak or Penang made up 50.1% of the sample.0 10.9 7.7 3.

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

783 .727 .727 .701 .702 .827 .817 .720 .904 .718 .741 .784 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .808 .890 .774 .906 .781 .881 α .811 .756 .830 .786 .824 .783 .707 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .711 .738 .749 .737 .887 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .808 .910 .703 .782 .782 .740 .747 .740 .715 .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 .715 .734 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .742 .730 .733 .810 .798 .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.754 .739 .Table 4.714 .735 .788 .720 .772 α .

808 Study 2 . RMSEA values less than . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.05 indicate good fit. 118 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.929 .804 . more than .903 . Byrne.80. and those greater than . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.804 Study 1C . The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne. only Form A was used. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. 1998).10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.807 Study 1B . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.800 .953 . depending on which is used (Byrne.801 .802 4.807 .806 .80 or above).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 . 1998).916 . In Study 3.958 .6. 205).10 indicate a mediocre fit.811 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. 1998).805 .804 .857 . values ranging from .2.08 to .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.876 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.803 . 1985).2. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.4. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. Table 4. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 1998. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.

00 .98 .000 .3.00 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 .000 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 (the closer to 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 1.90.061 .00 1.100.99 . Table 4.047 .99 .00 .7. 4.95 1.024 .00 .00 1.98 1.91 .97 .098 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.000 .96 .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 .000 .96 .91 . As shown in Table 4.00 1.000 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. and destination-activity orientation.96 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).097 . If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.054 . indicating good fits.000 .96 .00 .98 .00 1.089 .92 .99 .00.97 1.98 1.00 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .097 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.074 .077 .000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.070 .000 .93 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.99 .97 1. 1992).92 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. externally-focused frustration.90.99 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.00 1. freeway urgency.2. A third statistic. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values in each case were less than .00 1.00 1.92 .048 .

91 .2.92 .99 .4.083 .93 .030 .93 .000 .8.2.96 .97 .96 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.063 .091 .3.085 . RMSEA values were less than .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).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.92 .93 .081 .98 .95 . Table 4.93 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . and both GFI and CFI were more than . indicating good fits (See Table 4. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.98 . anger (ANG).93 .92 .90. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).071 .081 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .98 .00 .97 .058 .052 .91 .95 1.95 .085 .93 .93 .100. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. verbal aggression (VER).96 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .059 .096 .91 .073 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.99 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).96 .3.

98 .95 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.97 .058 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .096 .98 .089 .97 .025 .92 .100.94 .90.97 .047 .97 .098 .96 .055 . Table 4.073 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.070 .97 .098 .3.99 .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 .083 .97 .081 .10).98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.93 .92 .(IND).95 .94 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .090 . RMSEA values were less than .9).081 .095 .97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.100. Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 .98 .088 .96 .088 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .92 .070 . indicating good fit (see Table 4. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 . derogation of others and revenge.96 .90.98 .2.97 .98 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.

204(.353(.356 (. 1997). 2005.085 (.190) 1.332 (.034 (.453(.186) 1.154(.246(.010 (.140) .140) -.140) -.11: Normality Tests.085) 1.280) . 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 .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.099(.560(.403(.280) -.280) .091(.183) 1.140) -.140) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.094 (.278(.219 (.091(.064(.410(.3 Normality.323 (.379(.280) .280) .020 (.409(.080(.260) .719(. 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 1.146(.256 (.099(.140) .280) .241(.203(.226 (.140) .069) 1.280) .140) .195 (.140) -.126(.280) .351 (.099) 1.140) .192) 1.099) 1.188(.408(.106) 1. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.280) -. In all cases.280) .297 (.082 (.656(.140) .331(.280) -.239 (.107 (.140) -.140) -.140) -.560(.140) .280) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) -.805(.140) -.875(.280) -.037(.179(.091) 1. 2006).140) .140) -.920(.107) 1.022 (.126(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.582(.409(.962 (.057) 1.120) 1.280) -.102) 1.192(.297(.278(.280) -.280) .064(.4.280) . Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.179(.428) .280) -.140) -.052) 1.297(.280) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.280) .105 (.280) .191) 1.05). Table 4..511(.085) 1..064) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.183) 1.085 (.

024 (.106 (.135) 1.142(.629(.219) -.321) 1.153) -.219) -.467(.300(.306) .306) -.048(.812(.306) -.297 (.799(.392(.354 (.223 (.128) .154) -.138(.911 (305) 1.210) .279 (.986 (.101) 1.267) .306) .210) .567(.567(.306) .324(.219) -.106(.030(.214) 1.417) .417) -.533) .277(.159(.210) -.210) .113 (.153) .198(.098) 1.451(.153) .247) .064) 1.417) .540(.244(.370(.338 (.219) .306) -.210) -.024 (.847 (.153) .104) 1.266 (.295(.247) 1.209(.270) 1.100) .306) -.265) 1.426) .359 (.435) -.210) .822 (.503(.053(.713(.940(.022 (.973(306) .807 (.360) .106(.640(.130(.417) -.153) .417) .051) 1.417) -.362(.102) .852(.469) 1.003 (.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 .994(.306) .417) .435) .160 (.805 (.435) -.098) 1.051) .147(.007(.219) .Table 4.084) 1.259) .327 (.366) 1.001 (.948(.153) .187) 1.414(.497(.053(.153) .011 (.264) .417) -.463(.219) .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 1.962(.022 (.052) 1.360) -.359 (.153) .306) -.153) .110 (.210) .952(.070 (.978(.919 (.219) .435) -.915(.099) 1.317) 1.979(.435) -.417) -.153) 983(.306) -.156(.360) .006(.972(.131(.236(.157) .153) .271(.719(.153) .128 (.417) -.715(.841(.210) .062(.913(.153) .210) .501(.852(.423(.186(.276(.052) 1.537(.210) -.884(.959 (.435) -.210) .195 (.153) .276 (.510) 1.360) .147(.293 (.962 (.417) -.306) .375) 1.256(.913 (.478(.366(.120(.681(.417) -.138) 1.435) -.057) 1.219) .443(.435) -.153) -.088 (.

1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. column c). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. For motorcycle drivers.3 per cent being hospitalised.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.13). if so. However. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12. column a). injury occurrence was much higher. column b).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.4. Table 4. 124 . Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. with 44. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.12. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.12.

13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. 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 . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.5 4.05). Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.15 shows means. However. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. externally-focused frustration. standard deviations and relationships between distal. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. freeway urgency. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. in Study 1B. 126 .17 shows means.16 shows means. Table 4. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.05).05). Most of these correlations were significant (p<. crash occurrence and crash injury.5. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All these correlations were significant (p<. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. Study 1C.4. and destination-activity orientation.

553** -.942** 1 .239** .2691 6.52 34.147* -.376** .201** .544** -.391** -.44 4.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.396** .388** .376** .818** 1 .97 43.381** .96 19.482** .371** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .00 165.22 3.662** 1 .306** .562** -.416** 1 .218** .625** .246** .202** .88 7.08 2.69 24.345** 1 -.5 5.027 1 .211** .476 .804** .129* .280** .901** .533** .316** .57 4.231** .45 6.186** .64 7.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .278** .435** .147* .339** .58 .15: Means.513** .036 .78 .76 3.516** 1 -. 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.342** -.155** .247** .Table 4.152** .749** .434** .405** .471** .716** .566** 1 -.3455 .209** 1 .23 2.04 26.191** .442 1 -.340** .

225** .172** .84 5.55 9 21.06 3 2.386** .48 3.411** .278** 1 -.271** .172** .140* .514** .272** .964** 1 .403** .414** .491** .462** .028 .275** .855** .335** .550** .331** .50 5.254** .16: Means.324** .147** .028 -.444** .341** .195** .089 -.9 13 46.355** .509** .521** .3079 .463** .331** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.542** .378** .372** .48 5.103 -.150** .347** 1 -.200** .85 9.173* .82 7 13.53 19.452** .334** .338** .067 -.9 12 71.45 5 87.445** .236** .213** .254** .41 3.376** .523** .434** .779** 1 -.438** 1 .496** .162** .60 10 16.353** .669** 1 -.00 14 19.159 -.430** .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 .9 28.4624 1 -.84 7.039 .380** .448** .157** .240** .91 15 27.153** .461** .443** .5 6 17.268** .816** .355** .921** .343** .516** .731** .380** .337** .688**.602** 1 .213** .4960 17 .276** .071 .176* .418** .407** 1 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.363** .400** .051 .013 1 .43 12.555** .003 .518** .540** .481** .148* .366** .319** .531** .586** .22 4.Table 4.358** .099 .584** -.401** .56 2 4.97 4 4.382** 1 -.69 8.697** 1 .505** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .312** 1 -.286* .103 -.343** .86 6.440**.66 3.816** .842** 1 .167** .491** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.408** .355** .847** .D.25 8 18.298** .5695 .14 4.178** .294** 1 .213** .342** .369** .254** .515** .310** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .279** .763** .520** .393** .587** 1 -.762** .489**.

119* 1 21 .395** 1 11 65.278** .428** .250** .11 12.183** .181** .174** .592** .70 3.306** .167** .895** 1 13 26.342** .241** .139** .196** .89 5.349** 1 16 67.402** .151* .446** .383** .270** .210**.230 .252** .00 -.003 .67 7.199**.137* .246** .235** .735** .69 -.378** .483** .263** .294** .151* .356** .05 -.366** .340** .189** .390** .292** .36 -.838** .075 .345** .228** .747** .298** .81 5.162**.306** .454** .095 .64 -.17: Means.210** .141* .268**.224**.501 .78 8.228** .166** .310** .296** .095 .9 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.304** .348** 1 6 16.016 .-181** .508** .725** .448** .254** .185** .412** .749** .186** .97 -.31 3.183** .150* .221** .308** .367** .423** .110 .103** .502** .03 5.199** .033 .518** .377** .355** .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 .D.804** .368** .251** .18 -.530** .109 .275** .191** .277** 1 8 19.8 -.531** 1 10 16.320** .03 -.229** .343** .862** .338** .106 .158** .379** .565** .856** 1 17 43.191** 1 3 .254** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .31 -.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .70 8.293** .314** .534** 1 18 19.456** .277** .422 -.218** .259** .80 17.37 6.302** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .101**.506** .615** .230** .434** .7 28.70 1 2 4.222** .58 9.373** .235** .081 .364**.38 5.291** .281** .277**.226** .385** .076 .296** .038 .241** .288** .370** .148** .52 7.202** .17 -.526** .17 -.264** .343** .307**.120 .424** 1 12 18.545** .91 -.183** .131* .402** .192** .221** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.86 -.261** .209** .227** .304** .166** .286** .81 -.387** .9 -.324** .051 .069 .641** 1 4 4.192**.189** .258** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.219** .130** .323** .311** .178** .354** 1 5 88.082 .49 6.278** .451** .481** .313** .364** .745** 1 7 13.292** .193**.7 -.588** 1 14 20.281** .109 .275** .057 .271** .401** .Table 4.305** .230** .413** .224** .476** .465** .392** .202** .404** .265** 1 19 25.98 4.516 .270** .85 19.259** .203** .357** .42 3.484** .422** 1 9 22.245** .216** .150* .212** .296** .

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

028 1 .6803 .18: Means.367** .376** .167 .D.50 73.200* -.55 175.212* .072 .314** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.313** 1 .415** .917 3.291** .413** 1 .418** .290** .269** .750** .06 20.226** .374** .219** .535** 1 .614** .165 .383** .413** .48 5.Table 4.233** .66 5.562** 1 .264** .485 11.139 .122 7.621 3.4966 1 .356** .500** .025 -.150 -.182* -.5738 8.240** .232** .4683 .30 .409** .334** .081 8.183* 1 .630** .580** 1 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .76 48.758** 1 .251** .179 7.201* .349** .941** 1 .428** .259** .371** -.317** . 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 -.323 23.66 1.043 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .880 .035 3.876** .325** .14 27.192* -.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .

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

180** .128 .204* .106 .31 8.246** .17 20.147** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .816** .240** .109 -.171 .658** .373** .07 8.06 2.43 8.182* -.149 .173* .636** .117 .177 1 .213** .721** .271** .807** .82 5.197* .263** .88 1 .286* 1 .864** 1 .117 .112 -.257** .032 1 .11 15.749** .028 .072 -.114 .023 .161 -.604** .040 .117 .151 -.072 .622** .092** .454** .091 .150** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .103 .05 3.091 -.148* .023 -.82 11.172** .060 .141 .276** .54 11.84 2.42 66. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.45 19.116 .378** 1 .261** .404 .D.13 3.588** 1 .200* .165 .643** .194* 1 .213** .018 -.32 7.152 .194* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .4 5.35 11.275** .646** .067 .013 .167** .235** .153** 1 .048 .618** 1 .120 .236** .222* .030 .193* -.65 75.19: Means.74 15.121 .255** .166 .178** .401** -.235** .061 .070 -.156 .521** .99 10.060 -.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 12.268** .095 .371** .039 .218* .872** .020 .51 3.3 6.576** .240** .229** .071 .149 .254** -.528** 1 .15 32.225** .025 -.234** .08 15.324** .32 3.0301 .2000 .12 4.10 1.054 .289** 1 .245** .561** 1 .Table 4.443** 1 .418** .292** .338** 1 .853** .121 .

01.090.01. p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration. These results supported H1.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.01 B=.4 was not supported.034.01). p<.146.1.088 p<.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.080. freeway urgency.120. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01.01 Study 3 B=.4.1 through H1.172.238. p<. p<.202. p<. For the destination-activity factor. p<.01 Study 1C B=.315.102. p<. p<. H1. These results supported H1.041.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.01 134 . p<.3 inclusive.180.01 B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.1.125.01 B=.095.117. Study 2: B=. Table 4.135.063.278. p<.6. p<.1.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.1). analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.063. Study 1C: B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. Study 1B: B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 and Study 3: B=.01 B=. p<. p<.20). 4.01 Study 1B B=. p<.229. p<.048. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=.01 B=. p<.1.04.095.

p<.01 B=.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.091. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.165.21).01 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. 135 . p<. p<.01 B=.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.054.140. p<. Table 4.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.075 p<. p<.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=. p<.064. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.6. p<. Table 4.01.118.01 B=. respectively).01 B=.087.095.01 B=.05 Study 1B B=. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.033 p<.069.01 B=.24. p<.074.035. p<. p<. Study 1C: B=.2.22.120.01). p<.01.035.01 B=.019.01 Study 1C B=.059.01 B=.23 and Table 4. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. These results supported H1. p<.158. p<.038. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 and Study 2: B=. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. freeway urgency. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.

68 26.64 26.184** 136 .03 25.98 171.01.23: 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<.52 25.25 25.35 33.82 168.35 155.73 170.82 33.56 175.44 178.31 161.98 33.600** Table 4.32 147.15 161.35 4.77 165.92 157.77 8.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.89 21.41 167.88 28. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.06 19.25 5.60 185.Table 4.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.64 27.05.30 22. * p<.48 171.43 20.35 24.32 28.50 28.16 3.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.29 21.22: 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<.

and those who almost never travelled (p<.01 14.12 154. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01).05.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.06 8.00 14.060** In Study 1A.73 24. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.12 161.01).14 15.05).06 160. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.52 3. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 1B. about once every two weeks (p<.88 167. On the other hand.Table 4. 137 .01).81 167.01). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.05). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.29 15. In Study 1C. 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<.61 165.01).25).53 17. In Study 2.00 16.05).01.39 19. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. * p<.77 16. 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<.73 157.

316 1.52 172.Table 4.753* 38 48 27 20 77.81 161.62 10.437 (N.33 78. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.64 24.27 14.56 3. * p<.S.01. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .65 73. In other words.58 188.528** In Study 3.81 175.31 2.60 72.920 (N.381 10. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.09 15.89 20. However.47 5. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.S.55 10.26). * p<.31 78. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.05.71 168. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.81 22.82 162.80 22.26 10.94 20.05. However. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. 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. N.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<.97 8.S) Therefore.37 9. N.01.25: 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 4.50 184.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.50 24.68 20.55 73. Table 4.74 77.63 1.859 11.

ethnicity and age – were investigated. In this case. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. the lower was the total BIT score. 1B. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 139 . the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. In Study 2.6. 1C and 2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. 1B.been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. Again. 4. For ethnicity. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. though.1 and H2.2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. only H2. In Study 3. ANOVA results for age.1 was confirmed.2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.27). however. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. only H2.

99. t(250) = 2.62.6.562.1 and H3. p<.Table 4. N. 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.01). so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.98. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.44. Study 1B t=2. p<.05 F=11.2 was confirmed.68. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.81.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.9.2 were confirmed. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.S. p<.05).01 F=.01 F=9. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. p<.53.01 F=1.S. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.66. In Study 1C. 1C and Study 2. In all studies. In Study 1B.56. N. Study 2 t=3.00. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.12. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).05. Study 1C t=3.05. p<. p<.74.05).05 F=4.01 F=1. p<. N.3 was not supported.01 F=19. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Therefore. however.01 F=2. N. p<. In Study 1A and Study 2. In Study 1B. N. In Study 3. H3. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.S. Externality-Chance (C). p<.01 F=8. male 140 . H3. p<.S. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.

all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.01 respectively. 298) = 3.05 and F(2. 249) = 3. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.01).05 respectively. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.941. p<. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. F(2. In Study 1B.01. t(120) = 2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. 299) = 3. For Studies 1A. p<. p<.490.05). In Study 1A.05 and F(2. E and P scores. p<. 1B. In Study 2. F(2. 299) = 5. 119) = 5. p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.01 respectively). F(2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05). 298) = 3. p<. 141 . 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.527.041. p<.05 and p<. p<. F(2.05 respectively.05.566.476. 1C. In Study 1C.01). F(2. 298) = 6.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. t(299) = 2.462.370.503. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.

2 and H4. H4. H5.1 and H5.3 were supported. 1B or 1C. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. in Study 2. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. Therefore.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.6. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. 4.2 and H4. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.3.01). based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.2.1. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3. were supported.3.Therefore.1.05. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. p<. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.1. However. In addition. In Study 1.079. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 142 . H4. H5.2.2.3 were not supported.3 was supported. that age influences hopelessness. so H4. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. t(120) = 2. H4.2. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.3. H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.

341. p<. In Study 2.371.342.254. p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.6.6. H6. Therefore.01 respectively). with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. In Study 1C. was not supported. 143 . p<.239.01.254. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and B = . p<.1. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.2 and H6. 4. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.01 and B = . H6.01. In Study 1B.186. p<.290. H6.306. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. were supported.28).4.3. p<.2 and H6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively). no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively). p<.354.3.1. p<.01.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and B = . p<. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively).6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. H6. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.312. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. were supported. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.

151. externally-focused frustration (B = . B=.05 Study 1C B=. freeway urgency (B =.349. H7.01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01 B=.418. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.05).05 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .S.232.287.317.280. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.275.2.01 B=. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.01).254. p<.01 B=. p<.191. p<.05 Study 2 B=.141. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.141.200.415.3 and H7.01 B=. p<. p<. p<. p<.153.287.151. p<.099. p<.247. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . N.01). p<. p<. p<.01).01 B=.278. p<. p<.05).05 B=.01 B=.415. In Study 1B. p<.4. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<.01 B=.254.01 B=.191. freeway urgency (B = . p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01). externally-focused frustration (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.01). Therefore.05 In Study 1A. p<. p<. 144 .05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.153. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration (B = .317. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. 1C and 2. p<. H7.01 B=. p<.151. freeway urgency (B = . it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.157.01 B=.280.Table 4. p<. In Study 1C.157.28: 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=.05) but not for freeway urgency.151.232. p<.01).288. H7. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. was supported in Studies 1A. p<.05).05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<.247. p<. In Study 2. p<.349. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.1.275. p<.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=.

01 B=. p<.2. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.1 and H8. p<.1. p<. N. p<. H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. H8.1.208. 145 .297. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. Table 4.178.01 B=. With regard to H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. provided support for hypothesis H8.006. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.1. H8. With regard to H8.336.01 B=.01 B=-. Therefore. 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=-. p<.01 B=-. but not H8.315.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. N.4.077.3.625. the lower were mean total BIT scores. B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. that the higher the subscale score for I.S.168.388. p<. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.339.753. N.6.01 B=.01 B=.3.01 B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.044.05 B=.S. where only H8.229.2. p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.S.01 B=-.239.2 and H8. p<. p<.01 B=-.29). B=.01 B=.

p<. 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. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.1).05. F=4. F=4. 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.704. p<.01 and F=8.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. In Study 1C. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.909. p<.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1).01 (see Figure 4. 146 . p<.01 (see Figure 4. F=7. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. =8.272. p<.710. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 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.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Further.581.2).

p<.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.327.033. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. R2=. in Study 2. B = . 1B and 1C.3).6. However. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.00 68.05.00 62.00 66.034. p<.05. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00 64.282.00 MalaysianIndian 70. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.444.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. multiple regression showed mixed results. 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. 147 . F=4. First.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. Kurtosis=-.

167. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . B = . 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 4.371).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=. F=18.608. R2=.070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.01. p<. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.459. Kurtosis=-. p<.463.4).

p<. and H9.30: 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. N.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.30). 4. 1C and 3.603. N. However.01 t=2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.05 respectively.01 t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. N.01 t=-.467. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.01 (see table 4. p<. With motorcycle drivers.S t=2. the H9.603. p<.01. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. In Study 1B and Study 3.820.677.187.Therefore.298. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.01 t=4.31). verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<.032. however.480. F(2. t(300) = 2.780. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .1.6. p<.2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.164. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. Table 4. p<. N. p<.210. were supported. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<. p<.521.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.690.05 t=4. t= . Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. In Study 1C. p<.S t=1. In both studies.S.05 Study 1C t=2.05 t=. 249) = 5. p<.S t=2.690. and t(250) = 2.

S.629. F=2. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 1B. N.S. N. F=.S. p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.155.01 Study 3 F=1. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. mixed results were found.01).S.S.S. In Study 1C.567. N.S. F=1. N. Table 4. F=1. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F(2.432. N.763. p<.904. F=2.422.01 F=. N. N.05.57.01 F=2. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.01). F=1. F=4. 150 .041.021.01. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.564. N.S.S.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.S.632. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.432. p<. N. p<.041.804.S.01). 249) = 10. F(2.01).S.077. F=2.S F=10.521. In Study 3. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N. F=1.561.05 Study 1C F=5. 299) = 5.526.398.01. N. p<. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. 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. F=5. p<. 299) = 4.S. N. mean IND scores of Malay. N. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.182. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.

2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.29). Therefore. The higher the total aggression scores. VER and IND subscale scores. were all supported. were supported. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. 151 . that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. H11. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. H10. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.3 and H11. H10. 4. 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.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. was supported. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. In Study 3. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4.Therefore.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. freeway urgency. only H11.3 and H11. however.4. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. respectively.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. H11.6. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.32). However. externally-focused frustration.2. In Studies 1B and 1C.4.1. freeway urgency.

048. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<.324.263.438.01. N.01. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01 and B = .491. p<. B = .01 B=. p<. p<. 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. Also. p<. p<.01.370.01 respectively. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<.01.S. and B = . p<.121.01 B=.370. the higher were total BIT scores.565.01 B=. Study 2 and Study 3.01 B=. p<.5). no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.505.01 B=. but not in Study 3. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. Similarly.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<.229. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. but not in Study 3. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.235.S. B = .263. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01.385.01 respectively. B = . N. p<.Table 4. 1C. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=.387. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.881. B=. B = . p<. B = .216. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<. F=3. p<. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.461.483.01 Study 1C B=.380. p<. p<. p<. respectively. p<. p<.520.05 B=.540. 1B. p<.428.01 Study 3 B=. and B = .05 B=.183. p<.01 B=. However. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.05 (see Figure 4.01 and B = .545. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . B = .01 B=.01 B=. respectively.01.204. p<. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.

131.929.00 44.961.645.271.076.00 42.00 IndianMalaysian 48.100. B=-. R2=. In other words. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.01. R2=. respectively.172. F=81. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.316. for Study 1B. and B=-. p<. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .12. Kurtosis=-.05.003. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. p<.362.6.01.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. Study 1C and Study 3.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6. F=100. p<.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.01. The moderating effect of I was significant. p<. 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.297. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. B=-. p<. Kurtosis=-.00 46. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.01.516.

p<.01. respectively). Kurtosis=-.6). respectively). Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. F=71.794. B = . R2=.271. F=94. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.271. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. Kurtosis=. 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=.01 and B = .6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. Kurtosis=. R2=.109.6.015. p<.01.12. Kurtosis=-. p<.01.088. F=91. p<.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.01.297.757.387. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2=.507. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. F=78.297.694.360.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. p<.369. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. In Study 1B.606. R2=. R2=.069. R2=. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.704.117. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .897.01 respectively.431.

This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. p<. H12. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 respectively. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. B = .3. and the moderation effect was not significant.302. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . Therefore. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 and B = . and H12.332. p<.2.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.significant. 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. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. that the internality.7). H12.1.

t(249)=2. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.01). However. and about revenge F(2.1.314.05. 248) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.01 but not on about the derogation of others.3.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. 249) = 5.6. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. with the sample of taxicab drivers. p<. t(250) = 3. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.343. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. F(2.01.885. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. 4. 156 .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.05). male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Also. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.279. p<. p<. 249) = 4.05). Only H12.737. p<.05. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. p<.01. H122 and H12. 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<.263. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.

p<. Therefore.379. was not supported. This means that. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.3. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.277. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.307. 157 . H13. p<.2. was partially supported. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.1. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.394. H13.01 and B = . H14. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. p<.6.3. on total BIT score were also tested. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. were supported. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. the higher were total BIT scores. p<.01 and destination-activity orientation. the higher the total HAT scores. B = .01.01. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. p<. B = .2 and H14. freeway urgency.192. B = . This means that.01.Therefore. p<. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01.01. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. was supported. H14. were supported.224. externally-focused frustration. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. (that thoughts about physical aggression.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. respectively.413. p<. 4. B = .1 and H13. B = .364.01. p<. B = .

R2=. p<. In other words. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.072).013.565. B = .809.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.05.4.6.085). also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.01. F=57.188. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.002. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Physical Aggression and Revenge. F=55. Kurtosis=.-554.911.297. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. p<.8). Kurtosis=.01.

294.Aggression was significant. R2=.026.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. H15. B = . and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.01.207.01.3.475. F=59. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.1 and H15.297. was not supported.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. Kurtosis=. H15.092). that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.246.2. p<. B = . were supported.33).01. 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=. However. 4. p<. Therefore. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 159 . was supported.

2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S N.S 1C P.S.S N.S S S S S N.S P.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S 160 .S S S S S N.S P.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.S S N. S N.2.2.S N.S P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.1.S S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S N.S N.S N.S S P.S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.1.1.2.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.S N.2.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S S N.S 3 P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S S S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.3.S N.S S S S S S N.S S S N.S S S N.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.S S S N.2.S P.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.2.S S S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.1.Table 4.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S N.S S S S P.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.1.S P.

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

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

068 . F2.00126 . freeway urgency (F2). F2. C.05522 . P. C.4. C. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. C.97 63. F4 χ2 49. P. 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. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F2.02 d.93 . Aggression (AQ). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. Table 4.96 .087 . F3. AQ. AQ I. Externality Chance (C).38 100.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. F3.7. e. BHS.045 .58 35. Hopelessness (BHS). AQ. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.34. F3.060 Note: Internality (I). BHS I. P I. freeway urgency. F4 F1. 2002).96 RMSEA . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P. HAT I. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. F4 F1.93 . F2. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.00111 .00000 .102 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F2. 4. P.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. Hopelessness. F3 F1.00000 .f.093 . AQ. HAT Proximal Factors F1.93 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F4 F1. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 163 .97 . F4 F1.90 110. C. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F3. C. two were worthy of further examination.g.80 104. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.00000 . P. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. HAT I. F2. BHS. F3. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8. Study 2: motorcycle driver.

For Model C5. of the BIT score. .92) on accident involvement.26.97. .51 and PGFI=. For Model C6. which are detailed in sect. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. C6. ECVI=.destination-activity orientation (F4). and PGFI=.96.42. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. but not as good as for C5. RMSEA=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. RMR=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.98).10). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. RMSEA=. Externality (Powerful-Other).92) on accident involvement. d. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. An alternate model. Externality (Chance).97. GFI=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.f.42. values were: NFI=. 5.3.23 respectively (see Figure 4. CFI=.=33. .96.35.5. 164 .02.060.32. . The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. For Model C5.043. AGFI=.=24.26. . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. Externality (Chance).14. with path coefficients = -. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. .99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.91.043.22 respectively (see Figure 4.10). AGFI=.28 and .48.97. For Model C6.f.13. GFI=. To aid this discussion.94.045. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.29 and . with path coefficients = -. d. ECVI=. Externality (Powerful-Other). RMR=. CFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.

97 d.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .58* .99 P-value = .92* Accident Involvement .51* .29* Aggression (AQ) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 GFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.63* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. *p<.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.79* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.f =24 CFI=.32* Externality (Chance) .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.045 RMR=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .57* Injury Occurrence .

f =33 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.56* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.39* .77* . *p<.96 d.31* Externality (Chance) .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.98 P-value = .02 GFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.92* Accident Involvement .060 RMR=.58* Injury Occurrence .63* .50* .29* Aggression (AQ) .

IND. HAT-P.93 . HOS. IND.35). VER. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.084 .In addition. ANG. VER. HAT-P. F2.00111 . F4 F1.=61.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).41 d.91 .95). CFI=. HOS. F3 F1. HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Angry (ANG). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.80) on the accident involvement. 167 . HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.91. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). HOS. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F4 χ2 108. HAT-R PHY. F3. Indirect aggression (IND). Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).66 131.00000 . F4 F1. ANG. F2.91 . the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. F2.081 .92 .66 153.f. RMSEA=. path coefficients = . VER. IND. HOS. HAT-D. ANG. F3 F1. HAT-D.084 . HAT-P. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .66). HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. HAT-D. Aggression (AQ). F3.f.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. Verbal aggression (VER). ANG.13 respectively.41.00000 .080 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HAT-D. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).00000 .65 and .00000 GFI RMSEA . ANG. IND.078. freeway urgency (F2). HOS.73 169. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. d. IND PHY. F2. F3. F2. 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). Hostility (HOS).91 . GFI=.10.94 169.

05 .41 GFI=.f =61 CFI=.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.65* .63* Indirect Aggression . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .91 d. *p<.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .29* Hostility .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.80* Accident Involvement .62* .58* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.61* .66* .000 N=252 RMSEA=.72* .69* Anger .95 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.83* .078 RMR=.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .

P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). path coefficients = -. F3.=28. BHS F1. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).86 23 28 23 .7.047 . C. d.058 . the participants were motorcycle drivers. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F3. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.12. C. P.07580 .36). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. C. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.047. F2. F3 F1. F2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.17631 . P I. F4 39. 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=29.4.94 .95 . CFI=.66) on the accident involvement.2 Study 2 In Study 2.12).98). 169 .062 Note: Internality (I). BHS I. GFI=.65 and .12 d.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. p-value GFI RMSEA I.80 respectively (see Figure 4. RMSEA=. Externality Powerful-Other (P). Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94 .33 33. freeway urgency (F2). F2. Externality Chance (C).06722 .f. F4 F1.f. Hopelessness (BHS).94.

80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.047 RMR=.99 P-value = .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =23 CFI=.88* Crash Occurrence .65* Externality (Chance) .95 d.78* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.89* .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.83* BIT3 .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .70* BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.57* Internality -.12 GFI=.

39.94 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. AQ F1. path coefficients = -.35265 . C.97 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.061 Note: Internality (I).3 Study 3 In Study 3. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.13). freeway urgency (F2). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2.20 and .40) on the accident involvement. I. F4 50.20 respectively (see Figure 4. the participants were taxi drivers.82 28 .22 23 .93 . 171 .079 Injury Occurrence I. F3. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.37).f.061.=21. C. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. P.4. F3. GFI=. d.39 21 .00524 .7. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. 37. F2. CFI=. F3. F2. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. C.95. Externality Chance (ExC). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Hopelessness (H). This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.59 17 .95).027 I. Internality and AQ. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. C.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.06743 . F2.95 . but not Externality. P. RMSEA=. P Proximal Factors F1. AQ F1. AQ F1. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).f. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.03084 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.

20* Externality (Chance) .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. *p<.f =21 CFI=.95 d.63* BIT3 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .61* BIT4 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.39* Internality -.061 RMR=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.74* -.95 P-value = .39 GFI=.

38). 2 and 3 are satisfied. consistent with path analysis results. and. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.39). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 4. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. Therefore. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.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 4.8. 173 . (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.8.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Table 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.

Table 4. Table 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.41).40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. in Studies 1A. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.8.40). 1B and 1C. 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). where the 174 .39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.8.

C or P and the two crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 .mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. Table 4. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.

01. Study 2: t(421)= 7.665. Study 1A vs.01.9. p <. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8.837. Study 1B vs. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1C vs. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).663. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.442.426. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 2: t(372)= 8. 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. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 1C vs.01. p <. Study 1B vs.05. 176 .9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.162. Study 2: t(421)= -4. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. p <.01. p <. 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 2.993. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.Table 4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01. p <.01.

p <.484. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(253) = 2. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01.433. p <. t(253)= 8. “freeway urgency”.186. p <. p <.9. p <.614. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. t(986)= 34.01.861.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.402.926. t(986)= 3.01. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.9.977.577. 177 .01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1C vs. respectively. Study 1C vs. p <. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.747.775. 4. Study 2: t(422)= -6.211. p <. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Also.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.01. Study 1C vs.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01. Study 1A vs. p <. t(986)= 7. p <. and t(986)= 35. p <. p <.837. p <. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.261. and to injury occurrence. Study 1B vs.801.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.704. Study 2: t(372)= -6. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. t(986)= 37. t(986)= 5.01.01.200. t(986)= 6.01. 4.01. p <.687. Study 1A vs. p <.01. Study 1B vs.01.01. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(372)= -7. Study 1A vs.01.

“freeway urgency”. t(253)= 35. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.977.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.01.01.737. p <. p <. 178 .881. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.567.01. p <.01.982. t(253)= 8. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.01and to injury occurrence.946. p <.01. Also. t(253)= 11. t(253)= 39. p <. t(253)= 8. respectively. p <. p <. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 31.01.016.

(1993). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.1). freeway urgency. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. including gender. Often. Elander et al. They found gender. 2. upon examination.4. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. In an earlier study. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 2002b). in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.. 1995. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 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.2. 1993. al. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. multi-factorial perspective. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Elander et. 1991).1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Evans. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics.

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

… 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

there are other possible influences. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.2 years. For taxicab drivers. Inclán. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. SD=1. 5.7 months. 20. For taxicab drivers. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. Because of occupational demands. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. By virtue of their age and occupation. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.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. respectively).66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.25 years. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.hierarchy. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. and 36. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.01years. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=131. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. as well. They were also more experienced (266. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. In the present study.53. SD=11. Of course.1 months.1.63.16. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. 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.5.6 months as licensed drivers. SD=. SD=1. SD=22.3. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. respectively).

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

where Cheung et al. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . Nandy. Gomez.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 1999. 1999. 1998. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 5. as a result. as a group. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1966. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 1981).5 million in 1991 to 11. Again.3.7 in 1996. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.8 million in 1996. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. and. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4.3 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. an internal locus of control. by extension.5% annually from 9. 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. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. including locus of control. 2002. Salih &Young. 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. 1999). The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. but two possible influences stand out. Sendut. Indeed. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.

2001.4 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. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2001) In the present research. 2000. bringing them closer together in outlook. Lawton & Nutter. King & Parker. 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. 2002). including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 318). among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. by the enraged driver.women’s friendship patterns. 2002. 2003. Miles & Johnson. Lynch. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Nonetheless. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Huff. 5. Miller & Rodgers. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Jenkins. Dukes. Clayton. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . 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. Consistently. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. feeling more frustrated at external sources. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 2008. more recently. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Oetting & Salvatore. Parkinson.

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

in the samples studied here. 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 . In essence. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 2006). would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. 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. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. however. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). Such responses. as well. but not when they involved the derogation of others. the world and others).. although still significantly. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. 1997). one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. That is. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life).. The effects of aggression on behaviour. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge.strongly. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.

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

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

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

In the present research. and the root mean square residual were included. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. 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. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i.e. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. Williams et al. in that they have failed to compare or re-specify the proposed model with an alternative model to test a variety of different theoretical propositions. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. when assessing the fits of measurement models. Shook et al. CFI. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (2004) noted that. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. SRMR. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model.e. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Shook. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. (2006). as suggested by Hair et al. Hair et al. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.5.5. Ketchen. (2004) has been critical of most studies. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. etc) 196 . TLI. the comparative fit index (CFI). GFI. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Sümer (2003) added that. Therefore. the goodness of fit index (GFI).

00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. At the same time. Hair et al.. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.In the present research. GFI. RMSEA lower than . As a general rule. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Structural equation modelling should. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. 2006. CFI. 5.g.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . Fit index values (e. 1998). 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. we would argue. Sambasivan & Ismail. 2001. It is argued here that. 2000). 2001.90. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.5. 2006). CFI and CFI) greater than . it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. significant p-values can be expected. Md-Sidin. Maruyama.. 1998.

1. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. In the case at hand.3). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. There is some support for this position in the literature. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. as suggested by Byrne (2001). it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 .10) excluded the fourth factor. More importantly. However. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. 4.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. destination-activity orientation. Thus. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. 88). statistical. and practical considerations (p. 158). stating that. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p.7. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In some cases. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. two structural equation models. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.soundness. 1C5 and 1C6. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices.

02 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. F2.909 0.98 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.034 97.96 1.045 0.02 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. C.97 0.96 0.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.42 11. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. C.499 0.Table 5.99 0.97 1.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. 199 . Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.02 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.060 0. AQ.94 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. Injury Occurrence 35. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.91 0. F2.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. P.97 0.043 129. 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.48 30. P.

when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. farther along. 2006). in this analysis. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. it is 0.48. Parker. 2006. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Kayumov. Nahn & Shapiro. Hair et al. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.42. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. By selecting Model 1C5. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. 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. Storey. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Manstead & Stradling. while for Model 1C6. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. goodness-of-fit. 1996). provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason.1).. but still acceptable. 200 . However.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 1995. based on the notion that each variable included may. Schwebel. et al. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. 1990. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Reason. in particular. 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. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. they should be dropped. For practical reasons.

g.5. aggression.66). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. .4.14.1). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .28 respectively). externality-chance. Evans. freeway urgency. In Study 1C.5. The results suggested that the alternative model. on crash outcomes. .6.26. via BIT. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. 1991. Sümer.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. externality-powerful other. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 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. and hostile automatic thoughts). . externality-powerful other.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .18) and injury occurrence (r = -.21). externally-focused frustration. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.35 and .28 and .29). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. crash occurrence (r = -. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.45). with five distal factors (internality. for automobile drivers sampled. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. 2001. 2003).34) and injury occurrence (r = .35. externalitychance. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .5. Rothengatter.

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

had no significant effect on BIT scores. Distal factors. for crash outcomes. crash occurrence. for the sample of taxicab drivers. their crash occurrence. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. Results indicated that the third alternative model. with four distal factors (internality.5. to measure outcome. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.5. such as internality. Finally. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. hopelessness.4.5. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other. in turn and indirectly. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. externality-chance. However. externally-focused frustration.20 and . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. as a result. freeway urgency.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.3). 4. For motorcyclists.6. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externality-chance.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. 5. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. with the sample of taxicab drivers. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. via BIT. externality-powerful other and aggression). crash occurrence. aggression). 203 . This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had a better fit than alternative models.

1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. however. To a large extent. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. 2005. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. 204 . 278279). chosen at random from taxi stands. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. 2005). a total of five samples were taken. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. In the present research. Sekaran (2003) points out.6 5.6. 2004). Further. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. Huguenin. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp.5. 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.

2% and Study 2: 99. as elsewhere. Sabah. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident.2). The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.55). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Since.6%. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The most populous state.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. with a mean age of 20. Study 1C: 99. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.13 years (SD = 1.In Malaysia. 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. Table 5. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. 205 . Selangor. in Malaysia. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.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.31. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.2%). Study 1B: 100%.6% (Study 1A: 99.

0 12.2 (11) 12.396. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.4 5.100. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.5 (8) 3.818.2 (13) 11.500 1.887. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 7.6 5.300.000 Per cent of national population 26.2 (1) 3.200.387.004. 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.6 0.6 6.576 2.000 1.8 6.260. in this case.2 11. Table 5.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.0 8.000 3.2: 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) 7.6 2. For that reason.188 1. 206 .Table 5.503.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.807 733.286 1. In both cases.9 9.7 (14) But.880 3.674 1. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.7 (2) 2. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 2.9 (9) 7.150.9 (3) 2.000 215.1 (7) 8.6 (10) 7.2 3.2 (5) 0. Table 5.000 2.500.000 1.8 (6) 6.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.0 4. Not all states have the same number of drivers.5 (4) 4.3 (12) 11.

28 3.144 12.46 8.600 135.70 12.34 11.093 5.635 1.89 3.19 4.75 4.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.198 156.84 11.13 6.064 9.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.029 273.45 9.43 2.490 525.76 3.98 0.19 7.36 8.026 10.774 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 12.561 1.92 25.68 7.20 12.35 4.88 3.104 6.230 266.920 181.90 5.93 9.Table 5.163 10.588.19 3.606 24.55 7.496 187.212 39.725 70.27 14.428.768 6.003 10.24 0.93 0.137 698.617 10.251 324.96 3.37 3.170 13.34 3.735 165.4 4.88 2.785 393.85 1.041 92.91 2.16 2.05 2.24 2.70 3.63 207 .467 25.50 29.97 12.22 17.

Table 5.656 821.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.283 770.88 2.14 7.46 14.856 310.170 13.48 1.22 3.38 0.49 12.46 5.467 25.305 276.74 208 .15 5.722 255.45 2.76 3.93 9.958 % 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 12.92 25.98 0.727 161.679 90.27 14.63 13.20 15.02 7.615.4 4.38 4.88 3.133 705.725 70.75 5.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.79 13.104 6.63 11.43 2.989 6.03 4.606 24.37 3.59 1.64 2.66 11.144 12.992 776.617 10.10 9.28 3.561 1.221 36.33 4.212 39.64 1.768 6.36 8.064 9.59 12.02 10.288 444.029 273.93 7.026 10.995 233.49 0.003 10.35 4.112 347.82 9.

908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. participants came from – or. was representative of a high risk driver population. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.903** .Table 5. Of course. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.3 and 5. it is possible to say that sampling. at least. Table 5. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.814** 1 .4. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . 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. At least on these dimensions. it can be argued that they were.824** .

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

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

4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. individual standard.6. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. as well. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala.In the present research. Mercer. 1999). 2002). 1971). First. Second. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 1997. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Unfortunately. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 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. and the hypothesis (H2. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 5.

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

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

Summala. In the present research. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. 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. 1997). creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified.. 2004). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. In addition.7. 1985.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 1991). Further research is required. 2005). are testable and contain no contradictions.studies undertaken. have high information content. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Michon. during the study design process. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 2004).7 5. 1994). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 5. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Good theories are simple. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.g. 2002. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 2005). Ranney. 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. To summarise. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. It was felt. selfreported measure used here. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1).7. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. education. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). Slinn. 1957. At the same time. World Health Organisation.4. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. for the last fifty years. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.7. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. 1961. From this has emerged the growing 221 .4).5.7. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. or legal intervention. Unlike 100 years ago. teams of humans.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 5. 1957). and machines are highly intricate (p.

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

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

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

keeping. Hi H 1. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make  wider right-of-way – wider driver information. and likelihood of. “rumble strips” in expressways. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. departure warning. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. lane road conditions. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. infrastructure.Table 5. 225 . etc. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. generally  comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. reversible corrections through a motorlanes.1.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1 Vehicle Road Environment  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). transitions for. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. – 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. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations.

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

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

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

Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. like community centres or places of worship. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. teachers or the police. 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. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. 2001). Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. It suggests that. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. 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. however.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance.7. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. 73). 229 .5.4. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. The present research suggests that. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. to some extent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Eds.V.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.M. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. T.A. (2002). R. [30] Barjonet.S. In Barjonet. K. (1991). Manila: Philippines. and Tortosa. 34. [27] Bakri Musa. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2007 from http://www. 1173-1182.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour.[22] Arthur. (2002).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.. Groningen. and Dischinger. R. When hope becomes hopelessness. 4(2). 231-234.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.D. [23] Aschenbrenner. [25] Austin. (1986). 279-284.31-42.-E. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.. and Kenny. Human Performance. P. (2001). 14-29). (Ed. NL: Styx.M. 89-105. and Biehl. G. 2(4). F. Boston: Kluwer. 34. and Carson. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (1998).A. Retrieved April 4. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. J. [31] Baron. (1997). and Alexander. and Tortosa. P-E. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.C. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51(6). 239 . R. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier. M. [28] Ballesteros. October 18).-E. GJ. R. In Trimpop. (Eds. and Carbonell Vaya E. 21-30). (1994). P. B. [24] Asian Development Bank (2005).bakrimusa. strategic and statistical considerations. Barrett. M. F.F.L. [26] Aylott. Wilde. D. [29] Barjonet.. S. In Rothengatter. W. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual.M. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2005. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

When you want to use a car.8. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. Within the last twelve (12) months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes.

but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . 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 17.12. 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:__________________________________________ ) 13. Within the last twelve months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. 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:__________________________________________ ) 15. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. What is your gender? 16. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful