This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
externally-focused frustration.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. However. personality traits. seven fatalities are recorded each day. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. vii . freeway urgency. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. on average. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. 302 and 252. demographic (age. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. where. 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. some personality constructs. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). hopelessness. respectively). driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. and that driver behaviours. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. The 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). Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes.
as well. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. 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. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Results indicated that. As reported in previous studies. Among distal variables. As hypothesised. viii . BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. The role of the proximal variable. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. 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.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. BIT. 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.
1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.5 1.2 2.3 220.127.116.11 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.1 Concepts.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.3 ix .1 Accident Proneness 2.1 1.4 Risk Theories 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2. Theories and Models 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 Differential Accident Involvement 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 The Individual Differences Approach 2.
5.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 220.127.116.11.2 Zero Risk Theory 18.104.22.168 Process Models 2.6.2 Gender 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 Age 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 22.214.171.124 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Hopelessness 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 126.96.36.199 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 188.8.131.52.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .184.108.40.206.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 220.127.116.11.2 Demographic Variables: Age.1.5.3 Ethnicity 2.7.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.3 Locus of Control 3.4.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 18.104.22.168 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3.6 2.5.2 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 3.5 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 The Haddon Matrix 2.1 Statistical Models 188.8.131.52 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 184.108.40.206 Locus of Control 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 220.127.116.11.2.4 Hopelessness 3.5.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 18.104.22.168.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1.1 Demographic Variables 22.214.171.124 2.1 3.3 Psychological Variables 2.2.1 Experience 126.96.36.199.
5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.1 The Sample 3.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.4 Study 2 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 220.127.116.11 3.5.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 18.104.22.168.7.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 22.214.171.124.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.3 Study 1C 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 126.96.36.199.5. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 188.8.131.52.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 184.108.40.206.1 Chi-Square (χ2).220.127.116.11.3 3.2 Study 1B 3.2.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 18.104.22.168.7 3.4 22.214.171.124.1 Study 1A 3.3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 126.96.36.199 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 188.8.131.52 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 184.108.40.206 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2 Research Instruments 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.
7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 220.127.116.11 Results of Study 2 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 18.104.22.168. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.5.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 22.214.171.124.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 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 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 188.8.131.52 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 184.108.40.206 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 220.127.116.11.6.3.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.4 4.5 18.104.22.168.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 xii .22.214.171.124.1 Age.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 126.96.36.199 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.2. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.
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 184.108.40.206 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.5 5.4.4 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 220.127.116.11.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 18.104.22.168.8 22.214.171.124 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 126.96.36.199 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.6.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.6 xiii .3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.7 188.8.131.52 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.2 5.9.2 Study 2 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.8.1 5.8.1 Study 1C 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.3.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 184.108.40.206 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 220.127.116.11 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.8.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.
7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 18.104.22.168.7.3 Education 22.214.171.124 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 126.96.36.199 Driver Selection.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7 188.8.131.52 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 .5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.1 Theory vs.7.7.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.
10 4.3 3.5 4.3 3.9 4.8 111 121 121 122 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2. 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.2 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.1 2.2 3.7 4.4 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.6 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.5 4. Table Page 2.1 3.11 xv .LIST OF TABLES No.1 4.3 114 4.
Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.19 133 4.20 134 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.16 128 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.26 138 139 144 145 4.24 137 4.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.17 129 4.14 4.21 135 4.23 136 4.28 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.18 131 4.13 4.27 4.29 xvi .25 138 4.4.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.
39 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.34 4.3 5.4.36 4.30 4.4 208 5.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.35 4.32 4.2 5.31 4.37 4.33 4.6 xvii .41 175 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.
Hatakka. 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 148 xviii .2 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 1996.4 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 2.1 3. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.3 2. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 3.3 4.LIST OF FIGURES No.4 4.7 2.2 147 148 4.2 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1 2.9 59 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.6 2.1 4.
13 xix .8 4.6 4.5 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 4.4.9 4.7 4.12 4.10 4.
He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. they were focused on the errand. they are prone to other types of error as well. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. I was confused by the results I was getting. But sometimes. How important these factors are. He was very popular with other students. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. She had been badly injured. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I got back to work on them. xx . 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. LISREL couldn’t. But. The behaviour of the traveller. They were hurrying. she was riding pillion.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. He was driving. I wanted to throw in the towel. only a trimester or two earlier. I hope it makes a contribution. She started crying and couldn’t stop. And they crashed. I’m a fairly big guy. at least not with real tears. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. programme. . like encounters with fairies and werewolves. to the weary traveler. externally-focused frustration. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. I told her not to worry. he’d taken the same course as she. I didn’t recognise her at first. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. lane deviation and all the rest. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. My research design needed a serious re-working. I knew the fellow. they cut across a lane too quickly. is a matter of debate … Obviously. they were frustrated and angry with each other. just every so often. or wouldn’t. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. and this thesis is the result. I’m pretty happy with it. He didn’t want to go. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. finally.PREFACE Accidents occur. I like to watch boxing. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike.D. and his mental state. but she’d nagged him. She had needed to go on an errand. Her hands and voice quivered. I feel like it a bit right now. I don’t cry much any more. things were not going well.
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Graham. Sleet. perceptual (Hong. 2002). such as Malaysia. cognitive (Vaa. 2004) have been studied extensively. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2007. 2001. Enns. Sabey (1999). anticipation. state of mind and physical well-being..g. 2000. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder.. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Stanton & Pinto. for instance. Ogden. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Iwasaki. road.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. Scurfield. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. 1999). Even after decades of study. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. 1996. Mohan & Hyder. 2000).1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Trick. Theeuwes. Olson. Consistently over the years. 2001). 2006. 11). the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. judgement. Verwey. Peters & Peters. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Mills & Vavrik. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2002. 2000). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. commented that.g. 2007. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. including the 1 . Green. 2004). leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. policy-makers. 2004). 2002) and road safety engineering (e. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. Furuichi & Kadoma.
Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. McKenna. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. p. 2007). the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. According to Dewar (2002b). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2002. 2005). The chapter 1.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. including the study of a large number of variables. locus of control. There was a total of 341. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. However. 2 . The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional.351. A total of 10.332 drivers and 15.roadway.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 2003). 1983).112). 21). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. 2004.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.790. “the literature on personality has a long history. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 1989).
2006. Huang. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Schwebel. 2002. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Lajunen & Summala. 1997). aggression (Parkinson. Wells. 2004. 2002. 2006. 2005). West & French. Hence. Vasconcellos. Draskóczy. Verwey. Barrett & Alexander. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Ball & Rizzon. 2001. Gidron. 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. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Shinar. 2001. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Wu & Yen. 2004. 2005. 1999. Cohn. locus of control (Arthur. Wells-Parker et al. Hwang. 1997). 1991. 2000. 2005. 3 . 1997. Historically. 1993. 2002. 3). 2003. 2003). 2000). ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 2001). leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Barjonet & Tortosa. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Elander. Gonzalez. Sumala & Zakowska. Loo. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Blasco. 1994. 1997). attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2002b. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Özkan.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 1997). 2007). and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Dewar. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Lin. 2004). Hartos & Simons-Martin. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2002) and many others. Ulleberg. Rimmö. Stewart. Severson. 1979. Renner & Anderle. Parada & Cortes.
2005). Sümer (2003). loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. 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. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. 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. 1.Increasingly. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. externally-focused frustration. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated.. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. A frequent criticism.e. Speeding. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. vehicle. in particular. Noy (1997). 1997). with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . however. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human.e. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. Parker. 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. in turn. 1996. 2004). personality and demographic) and proximal (i. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. for instance.
(c) driver locus of control. gender and ethnicity. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. 9). p. 1. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. (b) driving experience.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. situated as proximal variables. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. injuries and deaths. 5 . with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. “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. (d) driver hopelessness. (e) driver aggression. 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. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 2005. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 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. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event.
in the applied sciences. 2005. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 2000). 94). Laapotti. Some authors have suggested that. p. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. road safety measures and public policy. the plethora of theories available. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. Moreover.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 1997). 2001. 1974). 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. There is a growing sentiment that. Rothengatter. Näätänen & Summala. Katila & Peräaho. 1997. 1993). they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. 2004). The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 6 . 2004. Utzelmann. 2004. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. “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. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Hatakka. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia.
and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. In doing so. To the author’s knowledge. Che Ali. It is useful. This broader perspective. 2001). incorporating cognitive ergonomics. 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. 7 . 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. attitude theory. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and.. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. 1. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver.. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3.g. in turn.g. Radin Umar. which deals with methodology. 2001). this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. human motivation.
destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. 1B and 1C). at the conclusion of Study 1C. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. or outcome. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. 2006. 711). 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. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. Study 2 and Study 3. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. driving experience. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. hopelessness. cultural background). Babin. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. driving (experience. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. In this case. variables (Sekaran. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. In each successive study. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . first. externally-focused frustration. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. In Study 1. p. Black. gender. 2003). This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model.however. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. second. the effects of selected demographic (age. Anderson & Tatham. aggression. freeway urgency. The final result. each entailing data collection from a different sample. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal.
These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. After the initial model-building had been completed. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. In Study 2. Again.are most important in predicting. verbally administered psychometric instruments. 1. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. 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. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments.to 45-minute trips. in fact. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. 9 . over the course of 30. In Study 3. a third model was constructed.
Stradling. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. Manstead. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. 1990). Katila & Laapotti. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. The relationship between the manner 10 . Keskinen. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 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. The present research. at least to a certain extent. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. Finally. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Baxter & Campbell. as well. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Are the attitudes. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. However. Boyce & Geller. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. 1997). there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. 2002. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. while recognising the distinction. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2.
11 .in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
“impatient”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 1989). “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2003). 2005). in aggregate. they indicated “angry”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 2007). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.1. A developing country in Southeast Asia. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. industrialisation and motorisation. “laid-back” and “considerate”. inconsiderate and aggressive. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “patient”. “reckless”. to a rapid increase 12 . 2005). 2007). there were 341. 2007). or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. In newspaper reports. 2005).1 2. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. in order of frequency. 2007). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Recently.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. economic expansion. 2006). “peaceful”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. These are thought to have contributed. “bullies” and “selfish”. 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. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. Over 6. “friendly”.
2005). 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.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Generally.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.040 2004 6.287 in 2006.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.741 38. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Abdul Rahman. from 189.287 9.091 37.7111 2003 298. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.000 vehicles (Law. & Wong. Subramaniam & Law.304 in 1994 to 6.286 9.653 2004 326.425 5.98 deaths per 10. In Malaysia.200 9.012 19.891 8.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. in Malaysia.417 47. This suggests that studies.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.645 54. 2005).228 9.236 49.885 35.20 deaths per 10. Radin Umar.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 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.552 37. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.425 2003 6. Studies 13 .815 2005 328. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.395 2006 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.264 2006 341. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2005). one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. Table 2.218 2005 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.000 vehicles in 2006. Table 2.2). 2007). 2003.415 52.
023 5.90 159 0.08 541 2.63 160 0.29 708 3.94 2.82 1.68 128 0. 2006). 14 .08 585 2.15 3.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.341 12. general insurers paid RM1.92 2.07 2. 2001).61 99 0.416 6.025 9.76 22.10 3.41 302 1.07 2.15 43 0.23 2.418 100 19.65 2.21 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.06 608 3.620 7.85 147 0.11 2. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.469 15. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.709 8.997 14.77 3.08 2.67 billion.47 280 1.05 2.50 979 4.05 2.034 4. 2002.967 100 19.551 12.049 15. 2003). Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. and particularly among younger drivers.27 458 2.67 206 0. Table 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.68 3.05 1. 2001.921 100 20.64 135 0. Palamara.448 17.216 10.48 105 0. It has been reported that.94 625 3.81 2.92 1.378 11.22 150 0.820 13.953 17.038 13.178 15.205 11.16 90 0.85 2.81 3.29 2.15 572 2.086 9.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.08 1.389 6.81 1.72 554 2.91 984 4.49 450 2.593 11.803 9.431 7.315 17. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.180 10. or about 2.97 1. Morrison & Ryan.37 337 1.56 3. 2005). or an average of RM4.48 323 1.45 30 0. in 1999 alone.309 10.7 billion.4 billion to RM5.65 121 0.80 203 0.99 164 0.40 1.71 543 2.31 3.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.005 15.94 1.947 10.110 10.54 708 3.84 1.26 463 2.
and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. which is actually a nightmare. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. or the pain of the maimed. (Bernama. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths.Yet. Criticisms of road configuration. lane definition. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. What else can we do. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. In 1999. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 1999). Some seven years later. traffic congestion. 2005). 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. if people want to die? (Lim. 2006). The economic consequences can be estimated. 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. 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. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing.
Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2006). 2005). Who they are. 2005). Researchers. Krishnan & Radin Umar. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. 2001. 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. unlike in other countries. 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. 2007).215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. given greater risks of accident. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. how they think. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. In a recent newspaper interview. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. though. Generally. as compared with 1. 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.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. In 2006. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. newspaper columnists. 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 . 2007). for instance. 1997).(Abdul Rahman et al. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. is often mentioned as a factor.
injuries and fatalities. This is. In a separate study. Ward. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. In none of the studies of the MSP. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Musa. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Ahmad Hariza. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions.1. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. Law et al. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Law. 17 . The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. perhaps. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. respectively. 2007). conspicuity and excessive speeding. however. Radin Umar. Mohd Nasir. 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. 1996). was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. In the same study. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Chalmers & Langley. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. For instance. rather than personality factors. Bartle & Truman. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.
122). 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. 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. generalising to all driving environments and situations. since 1994.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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 18 . 110). He argued that. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. resulted in a myriad of problems. has linked peninsular communities. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. they are accident prone. The very monotony of the road surface. 121-122). 1996). including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. the factor that made the high speeds possible. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 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. This. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. According to Williamson. however. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly.
driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. 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. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. This has included the examination of age and gender.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic.2 2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Among engineering factors. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). 1993. particularly. 62). personality characteristics (Elander. West and French. experiential. 784). 1991). but rather 19 . etc.2. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. levels of driving experience and. by far. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle.2. Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Christ. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. bad road conditions. 1993). personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Åberg. Among human factors.
1997. 2004) and other contextual variables. 1994). 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. Lajunen & Summala. 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. However. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. to a large degree. unclear. 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. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. 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. 377). Ranney. 2004). organisational climate (Caird & Kline. Further. 2002. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 2005). While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. prior accident experience (Lin et al. Haddon (1963). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 .by the behaviour of drivers. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. weak. or at least predict. 641).
It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2. Underwood & Milton. information processing. Nevertheless. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 2002. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2003). the use of inconsistent crash definitions.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.2. 1961. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Preston & Harris. 1996. 2003). the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1997a). 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. Wagenaar & van Koppen.2. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 321). 482).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. the lack of replication of many studies. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1993). 21 . Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 2005).2. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. there has been an interest in driver personality.
According to Rothengatter (2001).654-655. 4).2. but that complex traffic 22 . Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention.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. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. ergonomics. 246). attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. in the field of traffic. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2002).2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. Ochando.) 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. medicine. in a Spanish survey.2. or peculiar to. 3). Indeed. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. eoncompassing engineering. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. 2. traffic and transportation. anthropology and sociology. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. or the psychological support for intervention. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. psychology. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. To wit. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary.” (p. transportation planning. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.
2002). ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. 1995. Stanton (2007) noted that. In a recent special edition. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Peden & Hyder. surrounding environments and 23 . Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Garner and Zwi. 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. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 2007. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. 2004. as well. in particular. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the study of cognitive processes. Ergonomics has made a contribution. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Wilson. 2000). over the past ten years. 24). Johnston. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. 1997. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the road infrastructure and other road users.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. the road environment comprises the vehicle. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Hyder & Peden. 1158). In the broadest sense. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. 2003.
a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. Theories and Models In attempting to understand.3. 26). Walker. 2006. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2001). According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001).1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 2. Jannssen. Stanton & Young. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. though.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Neerincx & Schriebers. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . predict and modify road user behaviour. ergonomic inputs into this body of knowledge are shifting from a perspective of understanding peoples’ interactions with driving-related artefacts to a role that contributes to the design of interacting systems in order to satisfy user needs and desires (Stanton. road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. error and cognitive modelling. 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. particularly the notions of mental load. “This school of though. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. 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. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 1997. Increasingly. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 2004). which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics.3 2. Noy.
the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. whether theories should explain everyday driving. In traffic psychology. p. or accident-causing behaviours. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 1995). “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 1969). or both.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 2005). but for the purposes of this thesis. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. To a degree. 1985). p.3. Healy. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. 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-18) Often.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. many models have been proposed. 2. On the other hand. often in mathematical form. this may be due to 25 . in traffic psychology. 2000. 2005. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. Reasons for this are likely several. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction..
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. enjoy driving. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. and most of the time is not especially influential. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. Rothengatter. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic.. For over ninety years. motives and personalities (Robbins. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. 2005). and emotional determinants. 2002).the imprecise definition of concepts. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. 2. avoid obstacles. feel in control. Notwithstanding these difficulties. 189). etc. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. risk adaptation theories. Instead. cognitive.3. 2004. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. 26 . given the complexity of human behaviour. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 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. minimise delay and driving time. attitudes. social. perceptions.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences.
Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. 1995. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. aggression. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. According to Rothengatter (2002). thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 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). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. However. conscientiousness. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. neuroticism. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 2000). 1980) and other safety outcomes. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. anxiety and driving anger. for instance. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. but not occupational accidents. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. 1990). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. McRae &Costa.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). 1979). crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores.
p. “irrespective of environment. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. sensori-motor skill. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. According to Haight (2004). the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. but persists today.3. occupational and otherwise. λ. 1993.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. the average number of accidents. during and following the war years. Research by board statisticians. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . his or her accident proneness. 2.152). If each individual has a unique λ-value. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. 1920). The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. West & French. 290). found first that the frequency of accidents.finding. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. p. 1962. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. In 1917. personality. just as one can meaure height. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that.3. in certain cases. 1984). weight and perhaps even intelligence.
with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 195). more probably psychological (p. “Because crashes are so infrequent. inadequate or irrelevant. Farmer and Chambers (1926. in any sample. 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. 2004). with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. however. 294). 1939) and many others. made an assumption that. in a Finnish telephone survey. 1956). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. in successive years. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. subjects reported significant. 2004). produced a positive. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. by devising clever tests. The accident-prone concept. as well. 1929. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. Scores on the λ dimension. noting that. 1991. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. 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. but did not take into consideration whether.out what that value is. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. p. perhaps physiological. 422). None of the experiments. 1997). it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. in traffic or when playing 29 . at home. Johnson (1946). inappropriate.
but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 8-9). Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. roadway. 2. The concept itself is ill-defined. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. So. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. Stolk. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.3.05. 562). While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =.sports. Pijl.3. therefore. 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. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 1993). 1980. 1998). it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . sports and family settings. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. pp. Ultimately. Visser. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p.
4. following their review of the literature. 2. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. crash barriers. in fact. However. For example. Elander et al. 2000). The introduction of divided highways.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.3. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. large earth-moving 31 . That is. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. experience more accidents than others.accident proneness (Chmiel. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. Wilde (1982. 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. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 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. A driver who enters a construction zone. substantially. 2. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. albeit not crash occurrence. in a study of driving on icy roads.
1988. is if the level of target risk is reduced. That is. Ranney. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. 2002). 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. Wilde. 2005). Fosser & Sætermo. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. 1989. McHugh & Pender. 2001. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. Conversely.vehicles and warning flags. Initially. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. When others (Haight. a driver motoring along a wide. 1994. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. Collectively. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. for example. 14). observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. at least until the target risk level was reached. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. according to the theory. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Sagberg. flat. Michon. In two separate studies. in turn. p. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1997). 2008. 1986. according to the theory. 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. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde.” (Fuller.
Also. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 1994. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. More than any other driving theory. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. pay sufficient attention to risk. 53). p. 2002). psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 2001. however. but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. but they are not defined in psychological terms. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 1977). (p. the community. 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. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Rothengatter. 1151). a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon.” (Vaa. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. To the contrary. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. 2004). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. 1989. p. Slovic.. 2004). Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. Fischoff. 2008. 2002). Evans 33 . 223). Corrigan & Coombs. Lichtenstein.. “Costs and benefits are central to the model.
Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. after a similar review. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. O’Neill and Williams (1998). p. and 34 . Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. or expecting. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 81). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. In addition. 92). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. In other words.4. Summala. Rather. for example.3. 1987. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. 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. 2004. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 2. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. 26). drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. At this point. some degree of risk during the performance of this task.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.
A large number of studies show that external motives. age and social variables. 1999). If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 35 .1). Gregersen. such as time pressure. for instance. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.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. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Summala (1996. 1996. Reeder et al. On the other hand. 1998. Keskinen. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Hataaka. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. as a result. 2002. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation.3. much of which arises from personality. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Meijman & Roghengatter. Glad & Hernetkoskis. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Van der Hulst. 2. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.learn how to respond safety to. and specific driver actions. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.
1: Task Cube (from Summala. at the same time. a property absent within the task cube concept. for example. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. 1996) Keskinen et al. but that is not 36 . seemingly concurrently. (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. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 15).MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.
unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. 1982.. However. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 2.g. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. Fuller (2000.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. affective states). 2000) 37 . high speeds. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Most of the time.3. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.1).6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. 252).
the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. p. objects. 2. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Two limitations have been noted. p. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. and Keskinen et al. 40). 1991). Since 1985. for the most part. 1985.3. time pressure). 1985. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. institutions or issues (Chaplin. According to the TRA. 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. 126).Fuller’s theory has. Fishbein & Ajzen. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. 2004. however. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 184.108.40.206 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Generally. 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. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. emotional state.
are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. “Even very mundane activities.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 1985. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). 39 . then. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. p.2). 2007). however (Sharma & Kanekar. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). To deal with this uncertainty. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). 2.3. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).7. According to the TPB. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.” (Azjen. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. 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”). see Figure 2. 24). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.
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. In one study. the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. greater perceived control (i. 2003). Further. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 2002. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 253). PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. or sense of self-efficacy. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. p. when intention is held constant.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. 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. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 40 . 1989) Within the theory. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well.e.
pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 .2). Attitude toward speeding. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. for instance.In another study. 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. 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. vehicles. 2. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 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. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. based on data extracted from police record forms. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. 2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. Austin and Carson (2002). Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.2.4. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.4 2. but after controlling for distance travelled. Similar to later findings by Law et al. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.1. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.
4).2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.. More recently. Law. Koonchote & Tantiratna. 2. Richardson & Downe.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 Process Models 2. 1994). 1999). 1997) 42 . 2000). within specific situational contexts. 1998.1 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).locations and settings (e. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Seow & Lim. however. Mahasakpan. the vehicle (V). PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. the road (R) and the environment (E). R. E and especially H factors. Swaddiwudhipong. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4.4. Nguntra. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1997.g.
speeding.g. more proximal variable. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. gender. Within the generic model. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. substance abuse) that. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.4. Personality factors within the 43 . it may influence crash risk through some other. Factors within the distal context include not only road. 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.. aggression).g. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. Therefore. contribute directly to crash outcomes. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. By contrast.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. 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.g. age.2. on the other hand.5). 283).. as well. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. extraversion. sensation seeking.2. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. on one hand.
PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. e. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. 2003) 44 . depression. risk taking. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. sensation seeking. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak.g. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. psychological symptoms. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2.g. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. As such. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents.
called the outcome. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). In Figure 2. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. 1986). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. for instance. Tix and Barron. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 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. moderating or mediating effects. M. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. proximal variables (including safety skill levels.2. such that path c′ is zero. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 45 . 2004). drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 2006). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.6(i).2. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. Figure 2.4. If. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Also termed intervening variables. 2003).
or independent variable (path a).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast.7): the impact of a predictor. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).(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. 1986). the impact of a moderator (path b). variable (see Figure 2. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. 2003). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. or testing the moderating effect. 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. 46 . or dependent.
Using structured equation modelling.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. hostility.2. errors). intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. However. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. psychoticism). sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. hostility. anger). His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. anxiety. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. In turn. more relevant to the model he proposed. verbal aggression. given wide 47 .4. he found that. and non-professional students who were mostly students. dangerous drinking). a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. Further. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours.
al. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. sensation seeking).. or “Big Five”. agreeableness (helpfulness. 2003. Sümer. Edward. 1990) to a similar analysis. Finally. Greenwood & Yule. McRae &Costa. 1995. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. applied the five factor. Bell. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). 1993). a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). conscientiousness (dependability. 1919. 1998). in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. Here. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. 2002. for high-λ individuals.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 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. 2005. trust). Tubré & Tubré. Watson. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. responsibility. as recommended by Elander et al. personality model (Costa & McRae. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. sensation seeking patterns. In a subsequent study. (1993) and others. 1920). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. 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. Arthur. Day. broad-mindedness). Elander et. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations.739). in most cases. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. lapses.
moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. hostility. optimism. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Sümer. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. material loss. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. including perceived control. phobia. 2. anxiety. air force and gendarmerie.aberrant driving behaviours. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. In other words. navy. using a similar research design. Karanci. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal.2. Bilgic. have acted on those recommendations. Berument and Gunes (2005). Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. self esteem.4. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. reported that driver anger. In another study. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). for instance. Sümer. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. They found that the effect of proximal variables. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. 225). 49 . prior to the present one.
in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.5 2.8). 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. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Weinstein & Solomon.g.5..Downe (2007). Retting.1. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Odero et al.g. Type A.. 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.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.. Campbell & Williams. 2002. Yet. 2007) 2. 2003). 1997. 1995).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Williams & Shabanova. 2003. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.5.
overtake dangerously. 2002a.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 221). for these difficulties. follow too closely. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. less emotionally mature. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Connery & Stiller. Harré. 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. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Jehle. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. 2002a. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. drive while fatigued. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. Jonah. The former is less experienced at driving. in many cases. However. the contrary appears to be true. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . 2001. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Matthews & Moran. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Billittier. In fact. this is a reflection of lifestyle. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. tobacco smoking. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. 2007).. 1997b.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 1986). This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Vassallo et al. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Moscati. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. at least in part. p. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. Bina.
and that young drivers. (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.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). 2002). Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. indirectly. Justification of age-related hypotheses. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Vissers & Jessurun. on crash and injury occurrence. Similarly. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. 52 . Stevenson et al. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. Ulleberg. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. In the present study.39). it was hypothesised in the present study that. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 1999. as age decreased. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. 2007).
self-reported injury would also increase.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. 129).1. However. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. it 53 .4). and behaviours predictive of fatalities. darkness)” (p. without exception. Waller. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Chipman. Shope. more often at hazardous times (e. “In all studies and analyses.g. for instance. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. as age decreased. for instance. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. 2. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. 2004. in addition to having a higher number of crashes.5. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury.failure to use seat-belts.g. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. p. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. for instance. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. 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. Tavris. as well. Elliott. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. MacGregor. it was also hypothesised that. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Monárrez-Espino.
for instance. Dobson. Brown. Lenard. 1997. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Welsh. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 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. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Woodcock. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . to date. This is important. Ball. in a sample taken in the U. 525526). 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.S. While there is much of value in such an approach. found that while male drivers. state of Washington. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. (b) females drive increasingly more. Lonczak. worldwide. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Powers and McFadden (1999) noted that: The relevance of gender to road safety has long been recognised but it has been the contribution of men drivers to fatal and serious crashes which has. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. 2001). At the same time. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. Flyte & Garner. 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. which typically took place during evenings and nights.
crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. just as they had in 1978. (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. showing that male drivers were. 11). 2006. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. indirectly. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Laapotti. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 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. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. and loss-of-control incidents. 2003). Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. on crash and injury occurrence. 55 . on the other hand. In other research. though. Forward. In the present study. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997.anger. In a study of Dutch drivers. Turner & McClure. Female drivers. 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. as per the traditional pattern. et al. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. control of traffic situations. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. were less frequently involved in crash situations. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. Lourens et al. McKenna.. evaluated their driving skill lower. In a subsequent report.
On the other hand. Romano. Levine. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs.2. lower rates of safety belt use. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Schlundt.1. differences in fatalities persisted. Harper. nonCatholic countries. Lajunen. Summala and Hartley (1998). 2005). Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. To a large degree. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates.5. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. But. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Corry. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.S. Garrett. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Goldweig and Warren. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . for instance. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Haliburton. Marine. In one of the few studies reported.
While religious affiliation. shame-driven. peace. family honour. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study. Strong relationship orientation.. 2005). Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. cooperation. They concluded that there were. Strong relationship orientation. family ties. Spirituality.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. humility.2). hard work. in fact. cultural differences can be more subtle. 1999). piety. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al.. Indirect communication. 2000. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. prosperity and integrity. filial piety. respect for elders. courtesy. 1999). face saving. Table 2. Family centeredness. prosperity. However. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. brotherhood/sisterhood. hierarchical. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. harmony with nature. Conscious of what other people say about us. religion. Roman et al. Education. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. respect for knowledge. respect for elders. respect for elders. Fatalistic. Karma. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. polite behaviour.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. indirectly. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. on crash and injury occurrence.
5. A large number of studies have shown that. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. 1995. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.2. 2001). journey lengths.behaviour in traffic. Allied to this. as drivers become more experienced. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. with different weather conditions. increased experience usually.g. As experience grows. Lajunen & Summala.2 Driver Characteristics 2. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. passenger distractions different vehicles. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. although not always.5. Keskinen. 2002). On the other hand.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. and as such. 2. directionality of the effect was not predicted. 166). implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. Hatakka and Katila. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. in a given road and traffic scenario.. 1971). Laapotti. 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 . etc.
9). When using those at the top of the hierarchy. 2001). but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. It assumes that. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. Internal models contain knowledge of route. Yet.by Keskinen. 59 . Hatakka. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. as individuals acquire experience. GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. 2004). and sometimes confounded by gender differences. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. in many studies of age and gender differences. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 1996. environment. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. direction and position Figure 2. 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. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.
such as problems in vehicle handling skills. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. for instance. A simple measure of driving experience. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Female novice drivers.g. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. was used in this study.. and especially young male drivers. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. 2007).Laapotti et al. Peltzer and Renner (2003).and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Mintz. 1954). frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. 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. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. on the other hand. Young novice drivers. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. Ghiselli & Brown. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. 1949. 2004). the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. 1948. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Brown & Ghiselli.
McKenna. Elander et al. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. technical or legal changes relating to road safety.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 2001. indirectly. 2002a). 1984). Pelz & Schuman.5. 1971). on crash and injury occurrence. 1995. the concept is much less well developed. and type of route where. 2. 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. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 1986. 1993). All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. Rothengatter. Duncan & Brown. driving occurs (Dewar. 1984. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p.2. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. Wilde. it is accepted that the more one travels. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 282). Generally. In individual differences research. First.. Second. the miles they drive. 1991). with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. for instance.
Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. in countries like the USA. (1999) have argued that. Cairns. indirectly. Lourens et al. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. 2003). Mercer (1989) showed that. without correcting for annual mileage. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Bina et al. Yet. on crash and injury occurrence. 2007. Teoh & MCartt. Williams & Shabanova.. 2007). 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. Odero et al. Ferguson. Towner and Ward. (1993). (1986). After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. 2006. 62 . young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. although much research does not (e. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. however. Evans (1991) and others. Justification of exposure hypotheses. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night.. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. 2007.. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. 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.g.hours than during the forenoon. Christie. 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. In the present study.
or externals . and second. Holder & Levi. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. or internals.3. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).1.5.3 Psychological Variables 2. 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.5. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.5. 63 . In contrast. Levenson (1975. Stanley & Burrows.3. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.2. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 1991. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 1975. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. 1999).10). 15). 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.g. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 2006.1 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. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.. 1990). she separated the externality dimension into two.1 Locus of Control 2. Hyman. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.
E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.5. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. Sinha & Watson.1. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. 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.Luckner. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. luck. 64 .2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. 1989. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.3. According to Phares (1976).
More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 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. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 39). however. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. 1999). If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. 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 . Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. On the other hand. 1987). s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. but results have been inconsistent. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. however. 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. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. In a subsequent study. French & Chan.
This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . Arthur et al. 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). 1260). 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. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. although internality was unrelated to DDB. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. cognitive. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. Gidron. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. (p. offences. (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 meta-analysis of information-processing. In a much earlier study. They found that. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In an important study. That is. On the other hand.
and the USA. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. In very early research. India.1. Germany. Their results. is based on the notion that … luck. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Japan. 2.5. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. indicated that. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Noy (1997). Italy.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. (1991). Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). France. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. 122). More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. complexity and unpredictability. Hsieh. Canada and Japan. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated.3. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Israel. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. as hypothesised. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Noting that Chinese culture. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France.
In very early research.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese of Malay extraction. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Chinese and Indian populations. At the same time. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. 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. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. 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. skill and ability. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. all internal characteristics. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. only Cheung. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. 68 . 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. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Cheung.
2007. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. 2. Gilbody. et al. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. In the present study. 1997.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Niméus. 1975). while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. 1987. indirectly.3. Montag & Comrey. (2003). 1991. 2005). but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 1995. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Fox & Klerman. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Sinha & Watson.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Beresford & Neilly. Kovacs and Weissman. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 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. 1973). hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. McMillan. without objective basis. 2007). 1975. First. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. on crash and injury occurrence. Özkan & Lajunen. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.5. Cases usually 69 . Ohberg. Weissman. Finally.
finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 1974). have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. in fact. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Breen and Lussier (1976). 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. assertiveness and positive emotion. 1997. 1962). Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. indirectly. Firestone & Seiden. Second. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. it was 70 . investigated the relationship between hopelessness. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. In the present study. Very early on. mental disorders and alcohol misuse.. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. including risky driving. Prociuk. 1990. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Mendel. luck. 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. 1962). in which hopelessness plays a significant part. for instance. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. on crash and injury occurrence. 1998. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Selzer & Payne. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. 1976. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Henderson. in a more detailed study. Several authors.
Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Wright & Crundall. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 2002). Underwood. Deffenbacher.5. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 2006).hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. learned cognitive scripts. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Chapman. 2. Lynch & Oetting. Wells-Parker et al.3. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 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. Malta & Blanchard. 1999. 2003. Demakakos. 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. Mizell. & Darviri. Koumaki.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. and deindividuation. Filetti. 2002. Barton and Malta. learned disinhibitory cues. 71 . 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.. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Bakou. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. including subjective feelings of stress. 2000. Tzamalouka. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 2000. Richards. physiological arousal. Chliaoutaks. In a largely unrelated study.
stress induced by time pressure. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). 1962). Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . as another. through the use of self-statements. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. Houston. such as TAPB. lack of control over events. Ellis. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Crowson. However. the display of aggression (p. Talley. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. Groeger (2000). and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. 1976. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Bettencourt. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. (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. More recently. though. Schwebel et al. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Snyder. 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. 163). Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. rather than a cause of. threat to own safety and self-eesteem.
1998. insecurity about status. Rice. 2006. 73 . Sato. 2. Kumashiro & Kume. Sani. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 1981. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency.6. aggression. Undén. Kamada.6 2. 1999). 2002. on crash and injury occurrence. Bettencourt et al. impatience. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. In the present study. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Elofsson & Krakau. Williams & Haney. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 2000. 1985). competitiveness. Thurman. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Magnavita. Blumenthal. 2001). that the total amount. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 2006).with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. al. indirectly. Narda. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. and specific content. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. It was also hypothesised. Frueh & Snyder. Carbone. Karlberg. Lynch. 1999.1 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. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. James & Nahl. Deffenbacher. (2003). McKee. Miyake.. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Later still. Petrilli. 1999.
for instance. age. category of vehicle. Chiron. gender. where Type A drivers were 4. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. was driving frequency. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. (1998). and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. Chastang. West. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. 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. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). studied police officers in Italy. however. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. Nabi et al. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. 1979) and number of accidents. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. focused on the time urgency component 74 . socio-professional category. driving style. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. however. Zzanski & Rosenman. In none of these studies. but not with accident risk. Raikkonen. Nabi. In a correlational study of British drivers. alcohol consumption. Karlberg et al. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 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. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. similarly. 1990). 1989. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Consoli.2 times more likely to have an accident than others.
Glass. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. ethnicity. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks.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. 1977). 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). 2. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). At the same time. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS.6. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Miles and Johnson (2003). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). 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. Of the four BIT factors. namely “externally-focused frustration”. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. on the other hand. then use of the Type A/B 75 . Gender. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. In a subsequent study.
would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. hopelessness. though. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. They argued that it would be preferable. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. including gender. In the present study. on the other hand. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. although ethnicity. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. At the present time. In neither of their studies. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. locus of control. Similarly. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. 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. ethnicity. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. To the author’s knowledge. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. 13). 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. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. driving experience. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. Specifically. that are measured by the BIT scale.
1986. West et al. 2003. Nabi et al. 2005. 1985). externally-focused frustration. Further.. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way.. 1993) and. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Miles & Johnson.hostile automatic thought. 77 . Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry.
Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. with the addition of a third psychological variable. each study explored the extent to which demographic. In Study 1B.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2).3).1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. 1B and 1C. 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 1.1). the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 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. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 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. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. aggression (see Figure 3. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. In Study 1C. Then. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. the 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. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 78 .
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. overlapping and ambiguous. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. a separate score for internality (I). For the purposes of the present research. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. 3. Lester and Trexler (1974). For each of the five studies undertaken. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. a thought process that expects nothing.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). cognitive. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 25). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 3. Weissman.2. 1994).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. affective. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. but not chance. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. In the present research.2. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 1999).
Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). The effects of participants’ total aggression. frustration. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. Vallières. Deffenbacher.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. Bergeron & Vallerand. 3. Oetting. expressed through the presence of irritability. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . social alienation and paranoia. were also investigated. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. In the present research. Specifically. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 2003.2. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. and. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. through fighting. hitting or interpersonal violence. 1996). 2005). (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 1957. Lynch & Morris.
was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP).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.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack.2.. and. frequent lane changing. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. characterised by excessive impatience. 1998). 3. competitiveness. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. not allowing others to merge or overtake. (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.g. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . the BIT score. 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.. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.
3.2.2. In the resulting measure of this variable. Then. to the extent of inattention conditions. the influence of driving experience. 88 .. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. while driving.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. In the resulting measure of this variable. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. Then.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. in Study 1A. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). the interrelationships between the demographic variables.g. and. 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.them (e. 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. three demographic variables (driver age. travel frequency.3 3.3.
Then. 3. travel frequency.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Figure 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Finally. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the influence of driving characteristics. Then. 3. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . In this study. In this study. 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 psychological variables and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Then. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. three demographic variables (driver age. hopelessness. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In Study 1B. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Figure 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. Then.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics.3.
Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. In Study 3. 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. In Study 3. and (b) taxi experience. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the influence of experience. 90 . Figure 3. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. 3. This was justified for three reasons. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. Then. First. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Figure 3.3. Finally.
Second. 3. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way 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 H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .2. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. Third. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.
2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H220.127.116.11: 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 moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .3.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.3: 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.Table 3.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.
within a 14-month period. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. 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 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. 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.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5 3.3: 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 H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.Table 3. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 . using the same procedures as in Study 1.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.5.
during a point to point trip.g. 3. 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. 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.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. by postal mail. Stokols. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. in the case of Study 3 participants. 1978). Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.5. In all cases. Data collection took place within the taxicab.2. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Stokals & Campbell. Novaco. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . while participants were driving.5. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).2 Research Instruments 3. For inclusion in the study.. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.
based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “While travelling to work (or to school). I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.91) were found to be internally consistent.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Freeway urgency 14 III. as indicated in table 3. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .80. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. with a coefficient alpha of . Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. On each form.2. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. to school or to an appointment with someone. Table 3.” “On a clear highway. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. In a later study.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Usurpation of right-ofway No.” II. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.
It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. A sample item is “When I get what I want. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. 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. 3. 96 .Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. 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. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.5. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. References to the faster.2. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.
3.” “If I’m angry enough.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. Tanaka et al. Of the 20 true-false statements.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.2.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. I may mess up someone’s work. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.5. anger.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “When someone really irritates me. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 1982. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. I might give him or her the silent treatment. verbal aggression.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Table 3.” “I get into fights more than most people.5. 1993.2. 2005. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. or 0. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. if not. I may tell them what I think of them. Durham. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. and five subscales measure physical aggression.” “When people annoy me.3). Beck et al.” 97 . 1996). 1974). if endorsed. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 3.
4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.2. 5 = “all the time”).2. gender.” “I want to get back at this person. Cascardi & Pythress. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Boyd.92. Snyder et al.88 and .91 for physical aggression. 1996). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. age. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. 1997. Three factors – physical aggression.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. . 3. 1997.71 to .5. derogation of others and revenge respectively.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.4). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Williams. 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.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.” 3. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. with coefficient alpha values of . Shapiro. 98 . Table 3.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.5. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. 2000).High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .
6.6 3. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. After the briefing period. in random order. BHS. upon request. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. with an e-mail summary of results. BIT scale.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Levenson. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Study 1B: PIF. Levenson and BIT scale. BIT scale and AQ. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. BHS. Levenson. 99 . BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. In studies 1 and 2. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Study 1C: PIF.3. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. between the two forms of the BIT. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. AQ and HAT.
0.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. The PIF was always administered first. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. Over the course of the trip. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. 3. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Independent-sample t-tests. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. 2002). each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area.6. 100 . Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Levenson Locus of Control scale.5. Two to four times daily. rel.2 Study 3 For study 3. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. four female final-year undergraduate students. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. AQ and Levenson scales. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. 2004). Taxis were flagged down at roadside. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. analyses of variance (ANOVA).3. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 8. as well. At initial contact.5. BIT. 13. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. rel. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. For safety reasons. aged 22 to 24 years. Data collection took place in taxicabs.
5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: 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: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of 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 H4.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: 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.Table 3.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.
1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level H8.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3.2: Ethnicity influences 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 H9.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: The higher the Internality.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11. 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 H13.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.4: 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 H12.2: The higher Externality (Chance).2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.
7.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2: 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. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. locus of control.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.Table 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. In the present study. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. 3. hopelessness. In the present research.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. When significant differences were observed. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than 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. 2000).2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control. hopelessness. 103 .
linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.3. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. In the present research. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). For instance. In the present research. hopelessness. 3.7. In the present research. hopelessness. 104 .5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. Also. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. second. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.7. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. 3.3 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. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. if so.
to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. logistic regression. using LISREL. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. 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.7. 710).7 Structural Equation Modelling. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. 3. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables.3. That is. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . In the present research.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. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred.7. 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. on the other hand. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. SEM was carried out. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.
(Hair et al. 2006. 1998). Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. including: (1) two absolute indexes. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. Thus. 1998) – presently exists. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. In the present research.. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. (1988). According to Marsh et al. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR).well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. For Study 1C. the better the model is said to fit. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . If a researcher’s theory were perfect. p. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. 745). Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. in fact. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma.
However. and a measure of parsimony fit. 3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 1998). The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).validation index (ECVI). 2006). the ratio indicates a good fit. 2006). Thus..7. 1998.7. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 107 .3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).7.1 Chi-Square (χ2). an insignificant p-value is expected.7. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 3. 3. 112).7. one incremental index. pp.00 in which values greater than .0. the higher the probability associated with χ2.7. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. Hair et al.10 indicate poor 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. the normed fit index (NFI). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. 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. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.
The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. with higher values indicating better fit.7. the normed fit index (NFI.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. The index ranges between zero and 1. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. Thus.00. 3. 3.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00 with value closes to 1. Values range from zero to 1.7..4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7.7.7.00 being indicative of good fit. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00 with value more than .5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. 108 . an RMR greater than . 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 3.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. Bentler & Bonnet. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. The index can range from zero to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 2006).00. Tanaka & Huba.
It should be noted that. p.7. 109 .00. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. Values range between zero and 1..00. 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. in this case. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 2006). 3. James. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. Although values range from zero to 1.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.3. 750).7. In such cases. Like other parsimony fit indices.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 1994). considering its fit relative to its complexity.7. Mulaik & Brett. Browne & Cudeck. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. 2006. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.
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. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. in this case. 37). the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end.7. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=.05. p. 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. 2000).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. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 3. In this case.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. 1956).3.7. 1976). 1976. If the opposite holds. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . it is said to be positively skewed.
1997). A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. Marcoulides & Hershberger.normality of variable distributions. Barrett & Morgan. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 2005. 111 .
4% 269 27.5% 57. 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. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.9% 14.1). Then.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.13 years (SD = 1. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.4% 146 14.1: 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. with a mean age of 20.1% 562 57.6% 12.9% Total 441 100% 45.1% 121 22. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Table 4. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. 4.1 Description of the Samples Age.3% 8.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.4% 333 62.1 4. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).6% 82 15.1% 536 100% 54. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.9% 23.5% 6.5% 27.1% 34.6% 15.1.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.55).
with a mean age of 20. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent). In Study 3. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26).89 years (SD = 1. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 2.68. followed by Malay (27. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.63. In Study 1B. with a mean age of 20.35. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27). range from 18 to 29).43 years (SD = 1. In Study 1A. In Study 1C. Thus. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.25 years (SD = 1.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. 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.53. range from 18 to 25). 149 taxicab drivers participated.9 per cent). with a mean age of 19. 113 .
01 20.3: 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. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.89 20. Kuala Lumpur. Table 4.63 11.5 8.19 S.2: Age.3 11. The mean age was 43.D.68 1.2 7. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 1. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.5 114 .responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.35 1.43 19.65 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 . Johor or Perak made up 53.7 4.3).2.1 6. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.53 1.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.25 43. Table 4.9 2. SD = standard deviation 4. range from 23 to 73). 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.65. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.3% of the sample.19 years (SD = 11.4% of the sample.
7 11. As the sample was 115 .4).6 1.0 7.6 100 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1.6 2.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. Perak or Penang made up 50.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.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. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.8 9.8 5.2 17.4 0.1 9.5 1.2 3. Table 4.0 10.8 11.9 7.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.1.7 100 4.4 4.5 14.7 3.9 0.9% of the sample.1% of the sample.2 2.
no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 1978). reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. 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. 4. 2000).2 4. In the present research.2.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 116 .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 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.5). 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.
906 .733 .772 α . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .830 .824 .904 .783 .810 .783 .808 .730 .702 .786 .727 .727 .811 .739 .890 .738 .715 .749 .881 α .735 .703 .756 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .817 .774 .741 .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 .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.910 .740 .737 .711 .718 .715 .798 .714 .720 .742 .808 .782 .720 .788 .707 .782 .784 .734 .887 .740 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .754 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .Table 4.781 .827 .747 .701 .
805 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.803 . 1998.802 4.80 or above).929 . In Study 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. Table 4. 1985).811 .800 . 1998). we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. and those greater than .857 . 1998).804 Study 1C . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. 1998). ordering or other test construction factors” (p.807 .953 .916 .804 . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.2.10 indicate a mediocre fit.958 . depending on which is used (Byrne.801 .80.807 Study 1B . only Form A was used.804 .4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.2.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.08 to . RMSEA values less than . with minimal error variance caused by wording.808 Study 2 . 118 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. more than .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 .806 . values ranging from .876 . 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. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.6.903 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.05 indicate good fit. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 205). Byrne. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.
000 . As shown in Table 4.000 .96 .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 .91 .061 .098 .00 1.98 1.00 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 .97 1. Table 4.99 .070 .3.054 .00 .000 .00 .000 .96 .000 .00 (the closer to 1. 4.97 1.097 . If the value of CFI exceeds .7.00 1.98 .98 1.95 1.00 1.00 .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 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .024 .99 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 . A third statistic.98 .00 . and destination-activity orientation. 1992). externally-focused frustration.00 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.048 .90.96 1.2.000 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler. and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.93 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.99 .90.000 . it is possible to have negative GFI. freeway urgency.96 .97 .047 .074 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 1.077 .00 1.000 .089 .91 .00 1.99 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00.097 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.92 .99 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .92 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. indicating good fits.00 .00 1.
073 .081 .4.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.96 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .91 .000 .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).3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.96 .97 .100.95 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .93 .3. RMSEA values were less than .96 .98 .2.063 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.93 .93 .085 .081 .97 .92 .096 .93 .93 .91 .052 .085 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY). anger (ANG).96 .99 .98 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.071 .93 .93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.00 .92 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).083 .95 1.95 .030 .91 .90.92 .2.99 . Table 4. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.8. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.059 .091 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.058 . verbal aggression (VER).
4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).98 .070 .97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.090 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.94 .93 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .98 .92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.088 .098 .97 .3.97 .9).073 .98 .088 .070 .94 .055 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.92 . RMSEA values were less than . indicating good fits (See Table 4.90.98 .095 .97 .083 .95 . RMSEA values were less than .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .096 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.96 .081 .98 .97 .025 .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 .90.081 .97 .97 .99 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.98 .97 .098 .98 .(IND).92 .100.97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.98 . Table 4.96 . Table 4.95 .047 .96 .10).058 .98 .100. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 . derogation of others and revenge.2.98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .97 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.089 .
280) -.140) -.05).064(.280) -.091) 1.183) 1.140) -.280) .331(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.107) 1.962 (.140) -. 1997).226 (.323 (.183) 1.091(. Table 4.280) -.356 (.064(.260) .140) .140) .332 (.140) .154(.280) .11: Normality Tests. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.091(.351 (.140) .280) .105 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) .280) .280) . In all cases.020 (.052) 1.140) -.140) -.022 (.099) 1.280) .256 (.069) 1.297 (.403(.280) ..140) .037(.188(.239 (.280) -.192) 1.280) -.656(.241(.064) 1.126(.297(.280) .080(.192(.805(.179(.560(.140) .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.204(.106) 1.140) -.120) 1.280) -.408(.085 (.057) 1.140) .010 (.186) 1.453(.179(. Table 4.085) 1.190) 1..560(.203(.107 (.146(.094 (.085 (. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.297(. 2005. 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 1.085) 1.140) .719(.140) -.278(.379(.409(.920(.195 (.3 Normality.102) 1.246(.280) -.280) -.353(.191) 1.582(.140) -.126(.280) .082 (.140) -.140) -.280) .034 (.511(.099) 1.280) -.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.278(.410(.140) . 2006).219 (.099(.428) .875(.409(.4.099(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) -.
293 (.210) .160 (.629(.153) .681(.256(.244(.478(.210) -.147(.099) 1.153) .640(.106(.264) .919 (.300(.812(.006(.153) .306) -.157) .417) -.210) -.153) .306) -.223 (.198(.030(.417) .053(.417) -.153) .913(.392(.159(.195 (.306) -.417) -.100) .360) -.327 (.102) .295(.106(.153) .435) -.463(.265) 1.915(.713(.210) -.306) .084) 1.948(.719(.022 (.799(.435) .417) -.011 (.131(.110 (.370(.153) .805 (.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 1.362(.297 (.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 .210) .807 (.959 (.306) -.153) -.435) -.497(.156(.209(.057) 1.417) .962 (.219) .024 (.219) -.952(.219) -.247) .276(.503(.070 (.306) .153) .153) .306) .360) .435) -.435) -.501(.Table 4.210) .052) 1.219) .147(.053(.417) -.022 (.841(.270) 1.359 (.106 (.153) .153) .417) .354 (.153) -.972(.414(.186(.306) .852(.153) .001 (.338 (.435) -.266 (.098) 1.153) 983(.210) .267) .210) .567(.101) 1.062(.537(.443(.219) .978(.913 (.051) 1.940(.715(.187) 1.366) 1.219) -.417) -.135) 1.979(.510) 1.994(.214) 1.219) .128 (.271(.007(.113 (.986 (.128) .567(.120(.048(.219) .469) 1.279 (.417) -.360) .822 (.003 (.277(.540(.359 (.130(.024 (.306) -.138) 1.098) 1.467(.210) .088 (.317) 1.852(.142(.052) 1.210) .417) -.259) .138(.154) -.435) -.360) .847 (.306) .236(.884(.324(.426) .276 (.451(.366(.911 (305) 1.321) 1.247) 1.417) .306) -.104) 1.423(.210) .051) .962(.533) .435) -.973(306) .375) 1.064) 1.
(2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. For motorcycle drivers. if so. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. with 44. column b). 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12.4 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. Table 4.12. injury occurrence was much higher.3 per cent being hospitalised.13). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. column c). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.4. 124 . column a). However.12.
14) Regardless of ethnic background.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash 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 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 .
in Study 1B. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. 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. However.05). crash occurrence and crash injury. freeway urgency. Table 4. Study 1B.16 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. and destination-activity orientation.05).1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.15 shows means. Table 4. Also. standard deviations and relationships between distal.4. All these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4.05).5 4. 126 . standard deviations and relationships between distal.17 shows means. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.5. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. 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. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.
442 1 -.147* -.97 43.2691 6.434** .566** 1 -.562** -.5 5.376** .553** -.749** .239** . 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.471** .201** .147* .804** .246** .88 7.3455 .405** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.96 19.396** .513** .D.44 4.69 24.818** 1 .202** .Table 4.339** .516** 1 -.388** .306** .942** 1 .209** 1 .342** -.036 .625** .04 26.129* .78 .247** .662** 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .211** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .155** .416** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .280** .00 165.340** .381** .08 2.376** .152** .22 3.52 34.15: Means.316** .027 1 .901** .371** .76 3.231** .191** .435** .58 .45 6.278** .482** .544** -.391** -.218** .57 4.186** .64 7.345** 1 -.716** .533** .23 2.476 .
386** .91 15 27.147** .319** .172** .60 10 16.443** .587** 1 -.271** .496** .039 .089 -.16: Means.372** .847** .602** 1 .400** .3079 .167** .444** .97 4 4.816** .254** .286* .964** 1 .366** .401** .542** .688**.440**.067 -.540** .213** .294** 1 .254** .69 8.213** .103 -.586** .555** .276** .254** .028 .779** 1 -.408** .531** .434** .430** .763** .85 9.82 7 13.393** .298** .48 3.279** .14 4.514** .842** 1 .272** .275** .06 3 2.4960 17 .051 .334** .Table 4.481** .438** 1 .584** -.312** 1 -.669** 1 -.176* .855** .355** .4624 1 -.159 -.22 4.50 5.378** .489**.358** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .347** 1 -.41 3.00 14 19.414** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.25 8 18.48 5.86 6.515** .099 .5695 .462** .491** .45 5 87.84 7.172** .240** .331** .150** .342** .103 -.816** .403** .521** .520** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.376** .173* .338** .335** .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 .448** .461** .140* .236** .013 1 .5 6 17.148* .491** .382** 1 -.003 .697** 1 .445** .56 2 4.343** .195** .9 12 71.213** .343** .463** .028 -.518** .550** .84 5.157** .D.369** .310** .53 19.731** .200** .523** .55 9 21.353** .380** .341** .411** .509** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .162** .278** 1 -.324** .363** .505** .355** .331** .43 12.071 .178** .452** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .268** .153** .9 13 46.355** .9 28.516** .337** .418** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.380** .762** .407** 1 -.225** .66 3.921** .
448** .221** .342** .076 .338** .141* .749** .422 -.97 -.64 -.31 -.343** .278** .428** .246** .67 7.37 6.323** .526** .364** .311** .D.483** .210**.456** .17 -.545** .-181** .735** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .275** .166** .383** .412** .130** .745** 1 7 13.202** .003 .069 .292** .518** .70 1 2 4.296** .390** .293** .502** .230 .192**.804** .343** .70 8.838** .307**.181** .379** .588** 1 14 20.151* .615** .119* 1 21 .357** .305** .259** .230** .277**.082 .86 -.183** .484** .189** .131* .58 9.254** .186** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.277** .254** .306** .367** .354** 1 5 88.178** .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 .402** .349** 1 16 67.191** .565** .224**. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .392** .263** .277** 1 8 19.051 .150* .199** .219** .196** .259** .481** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.191** 1 3 .508** .03 -.320** .148** .80 17.235** .281** .81 5.192** .209** .862** .434** .251** .302** .218** .11 12.395** 1 11 65.101**.531** 1 10 16.110 .534** 1 18 19.423** .304** .70 3.17 -.91 -.446** .151* .314** .258** .271** .38 5.641** 1 4 4.340** .292** .377** .05 -.167** .137* .038 .52 7.373** .306** .370** .226** .199**.158** .501 .516 .183** .281** .075 .7 -.49 6.856** 1 17 43.222** .304** .8 -.241** .78 8.9 -.324** .250** .03 5.202** .230** .345** .298** .095 .7 28.89 5.016 .120 .310** .422** 1 9 22.235** .224** .404** .095 .265** 1 19 25.166** .228** .465** .378** .264** .348** 1 6 16.366** .185** .476** .193**.296** .747** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .506** .270** .109 .401** .313** .00 -.36 -.081 .183** .139** .245** .189** .227** .210** .162**.424** 1 12 18.174** .278** .296** .212** .288** .286** .530** .261** .451** .364**.216** .9 -.033 .368** .402** .18 -.385** .Table 4.592** .725** .294** .355** .81 -.057 .268**.228** .275** .241** .69 -.85 19.291** .31 3.252** .387** .150* .229** .98 4.203** .356** .109 .895** 1 13 26.454** .17: Means.106 .221** .270** .413** .103** .308** .42 3.
2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. However. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. externally-focused frustration. 130 . standard deviations and relationships between distal. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.18 shows means. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. all BIT subscales. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.5. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. Similar to observed results in study 1A. and destination-activity orientation. 4. freeway urgency. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. 1B and 1C.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.
55 175.264** .14 27.76 48. 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.139 .192* -.325** .081 8.291** .269** .50 73.313** 1 .876** .580** 1 .232** .415** .376** .500** .072 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .630** .219** .383** .200* -.428** .374** .758** 1 .259** .485 11.240** .535** 1 .212* .30 .043 .750** .06 20.179 7.167 .035 3.317** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .233** .349** .413** .413** 1 .18: Means.290** .226** .122 7.4683 .025 -.5738 8.941** 1 .251** .6803 .028 1 .323 23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.111 -.614** .371** -.183* 1 .356** .562** 1 .418** .314** .D.4966 1 .409** .880 .66 1.621 3.66 5.201* .367** .Table 4.182* -.334** .150 -.917 3.165 .48 5.
1C and 2. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.4.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.19 shows means. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 132 . proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. Differing from Studies 1A. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. 1B.19. In general. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. correlations between I and distal. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In this study. However.5. standard deviations and relationships between distal.
816** .872** .114 .4 5.172** .200* .151 -.32 3.153** 1 .D.222* .10 1.018 -.261** .117 .149 .11 15.060 -.194* .292** .091 .182* -.82 11.072 -.156 .103 .257** .025 -.561** 1 .180** .19: Means.618** 1 .225** .245** .213** .091 -.246** .173* .2000 .071 .807** .646** .240** .84 2.454** .120 .193* -.218* .235** .197* .88 1 .156 .040 .3 6.061 .42 66.864** 1 .030 .178** .149 .194* 1 .147** .275** .54 11.148* .070 -.373** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .141 .404 .213** .15 32.161 -.095 .588** 1 .234** .749** .82 5.254** -.371** .43 8.643** .177 1 .235** .128 .853** .99 10.31 8.152 .117 .276** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .324** .013 .65 75.521** .13 3.106 .165 .17 20.45 19.204* .289** 1 .121 . 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 12.054 .12 4.255** .121 .116 .07 8.268** .240** .032 1 .020 .51 3.109 -.286* 1 .08 15.06 2.378** 1 .528** 1 .263** .271** .028 .023 .622** .604** .721** .576** .117 .171 .048 .023 -.236** .092** .636** .74 15.35 11.112 -.060 .338** 1 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .150** .05 3.32 7.039 .658** .443** 1 .401** -.Table 4.0301 .067 .166 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.418** .072 .167** .229** .
and externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=.18.104.22.168. freeway urgency.238. p<.20).1.095.6.20: 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=.095.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=. Study 2: B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.088 p<.102. p<. These results supported H1.034. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.202. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<.01 B=.125.01.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.01 B=.01 and Study 3: B=.146.01. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.04. p<. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.3 inclusive.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. p<.1 through H1. Study 1B: B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. Table 4. p<.01). p<.063.01 Study 1B B=.048.01 B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.278. H1. 4. For the destination-activity factor. p<. Study 1C: B=. p<.01. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.01 B=.041.135.01 B=.01 134 .1. p<. p<.4.1). p<.080.01 B=. p<.4 was not supported.01 B=.315. p<.063.120. p<.01 B=. p<.229.1. p<.090.
120.01 B=.069.01 B=. p<.035.165.01 B=.075 p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.05 Study 1B B=.23 and Table 4.01 B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. p<.064.01).054. p<.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. Table 4. Table 4. p<.01 and Study 2: B=. p<.21). the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=. p<. p<.038.095. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.140. p<.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.019. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. p<. freeway urgency.118.158.074. These results supported H1.01 B=. p<. p<.01.22.2. Study 1C: B=.059. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 B=. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. p<. 135 . p<.01 B=. p<.091. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.087.01 B=.24.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.21: 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=.033 p<. respectively).035.6.
35 24.15 161.60 185.600** Table 4.52 25.77 8.92 157.22: 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<.32 147.32 28.06 19.25 5.Table 4.43 20.05.44 178.98 171.35 4.89 21.30 22.03 25.73 170.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.98 33.77 165.50 28. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.16 3.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.82 168. * p<.41 167.68 26.56 175.88 28.48 171.31 161.82 33.35 33.184** 136 .64 26.64 27.35 155.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.25 25.01.29 21.
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<.05).14 15.73 24. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.00 14.61 165.01).05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01).88 167.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. In Study 1B.52 3. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.25). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.39 19. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. On the other hand.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<.05.06 8.060** In Study 1A. 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<. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.12 154. about once every two weeks (p<.Table 4.77 16. * p<.05).05).00 16.01 14.53 17.01.12 161. In Study 1C.01).01).29 15.01). In Study 2. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. and those who almost never travelled (p<.81 167. 137 .06 160.73 157.
S.09 15.58 188. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers.68 20. * p<.Table 4.859 11.05. However.52 172.753* 38 48 27 20 77.26 10. N.920 (N.437 (N.71 168. N.31 2.81 175.56 3.33 78.316 1.50 24.37 9.25: 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<.31 78.55 73. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.94 20.97 8. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.81 22. * p<.81 161.82 162.05.65 73. In other words.63 1.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.64 24.62 10. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.01.50 184.26). Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.S) Therefore.60 72.381 10. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.528** In Study 3.01.26: 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<.74 77.27 14.S.55 10. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .47 5.80 22. Table 4.89 20. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. However.
indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. only H2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 139 . For ethnicity. the lower was the total BIT score. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 1B. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 1B.been predicted by H2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.6. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.1 and H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. In Study 2. In this case. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. however.1 was confirmed. In Study 3. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. 1C and 2.2. only H2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. ethnicity and age – were investigated. though. 4. Contrary to the subhypothesis. In Studies 1A. ANOVA results for age.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.2.27). Again.
N.562.05.S. p<.01 F=1. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.99.01 F=.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. 4.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<. Study 1B t=2.05). Study 1C t=3. In Study 1B.01 F=9. Externality-Chance (C).68. N.00. Therefore. p<.12. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.3 was not supported.9.S. p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.74.53. In Study 1B.2 were confirmed. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). however.66. p<.S.S. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1C.01 F=1.01 F=2. p<.98.05 F=11.1 and H3. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. male 140 .05).Table 4. N.56. p<. In all studies. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.05.6.62. p<. In Study 3. 1C and Study 2. p<. N. H3. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.01 F=19. H3. N. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. p<.44. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.05 F=4. Study 2 t=3. t(250) = 2.01).2 was confirmed.81.01 F=8. In Study 1A and Study 2.
566.05 and F(2. In Study 1A.527. p<. p<.01). F(2. 141 .01 respectively). ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. p<.01 respectively.05 respectively.01. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 1C. t(120) = 2.05. F(2. 298) = 6. In Study 1B. F(2.370. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. In Study 2. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. t(299) = 2. 299) = 5.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.05 respectively. F(2. p<. 299) = 3. F(2.490. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. In Study 1C. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. p<.05 and p<.503. p<.05 and F(2. 119) = 5. 249) = 3.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05).05.041. p<. 1B.941. 298) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. For Studies 1A.01). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.05). E and P scores. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.476. 298) = 3.462.
it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. However.3.3 was supported. H5. In Study 1. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.1 and H5. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.1. Therefore. 1B or 1C. H4. H4.3. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. so H4. that age influences hopelessness.3.2. 142 .079.05.1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. H4. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. in Study 2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.2. H5.3 were not supported.2. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. 4.2. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. were supported.2 and H4.3 were supported. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. t(120) = 2. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.1. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.01).Therefore.6. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. p<. In addition.2 and H4. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H4.
4. p<.354. was not supported.01 and B = . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively).371.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. p<.4.341. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.6. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. In Study 1C.254. 143 .312. that internality would influence hopelessness.1. p<. respectively). p<.01. Therefore.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . In Study 2. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 respectively).342.2 and H6. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<. H6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. were supported. In Study 1B. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.254.01.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.01 and B = .186. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.3.2 and H6. p<.239.28).01 and (B = . p<. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.1.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.306.01.6. H6.290.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported. p<.01 and B = . H6.3. 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. respectively). H6.
144 .05).280. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. In Study 1B.153.275. H7. freeway urgency (B = .01). p<.280.200. p<.418.Table 4. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<.191.05 B=.S.151. p<.254. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01).141.01). p<. p<. 1C and 2. externally-focused frustration (B = .4.151. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05 Study 2 B=. freeway urgency (B = .05 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . was supported in Studies 1A.01 Study 1B B=. p<. N.247. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.349.05 Study 1C B=. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<.05 In Study 1A. p<. Therefore. p<.01 B=. p<.141.05) but not for freeway urgency. B=. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.232. p<. freeway urgency (B =. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.099.288.01 B=. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.157. p<.317.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.415.278.05). H7.415. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.157.01).01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<.05). externally-focused frustration (B = . In Study 2.3 and H7.247. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.01 B=.01 B=. H7.191. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . In Study 1C.1.287. p<.232. p<. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01).153.275.01 B=.01).317.01 B=. p<.2.254.01).287.01 B=.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151.349. p<. p<.01 B=.
Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.388.S. that the higher the subscale score for I.01 B=-. p<. With regard to H8. 145 .1. B=. p<.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.6.315.01 B=.178.1. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. N.01 B=. but not H8. H8. With regard to H8. H8.044. N. p<. B=.3. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.1. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.3. where only H8.4. H8. p<.29). p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.2 and H8.339. p<. N.229.208.01 B=-. p<. p<.S.336. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.8 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.239.01 B=.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<. Table 4.625.1 and H8. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.2. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.753.01 B=-.05 B=.S.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=-.2. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.168.077. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.006. Therefore.01 B=.297. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.
01 (see Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. =8.909.704. p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.272.01 respectively (see Figure 4.05.710. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. 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. F=4. Further. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. In Study 1C. F=7. p<.1). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<. 146 . F=4.1).581.01 (see Figure 4. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.2).01 and F=8. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.
147 .033.444.05.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.282. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.327.00 66.00 MalaysianIndian 70.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. p<.034. B = .6. First.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 68.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. 1B and 1C. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=4. R2=. p<.3).00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.05. Kurtosis=-. However.00 62. 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. in Study 2. multiple regression showed mixed results.00 64. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Kurtosis=-. B = .3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.070.459. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.463.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.608.01. F=18.371).01. p<.4).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.167. p<. 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. R2=.
verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. 4. p<.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. With motorcycle drivers. N.187. F(2.298. the H9.01 (see table 4.780.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.603. t= .05 t=. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.032. were supported.210. Table 4.30: 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. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . p<. p<.05 Study 1C t=2. p<. p<.01.01 t=2. t(300) = 2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. 249) = 5. N.30).2. however. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.05 t=4. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. and H9. p<.690.S t=2. 1C and 3. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.820. p<.6.S.164. p<.01 t=-. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. In Study 1C.S t=2. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. In Study 1B and Study 3.01 t=4. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.677.1.31).01 t=2.467. N. However. p<. and t(250) = 2.603. N. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.690.Therefore.05 respectively.480. In both studies.521.S t=1.
F=1. In Study 3. N. F=2.01 F=.526. F=1.S.S.804.904.041.S. 150 .S. F=2. N.05 Study 1C F=5. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3. N.S. N. N.432. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.01. N. In Study 1C. F=2.182.S.01). p<. N. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 1B.S. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F=5.01 F=2.155. F=. F(2. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.01. N.561. 249) = 10. F=4.398.01). p<.632.521. p<. p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.629. N. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. 299) = 5.567.S.S.01). mixed results were found. F=1.S.021. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. 299) = 4.05.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1.763. F=2. N. F=1. p<.422. F(2.041.S. Table 4. N.01 Study 3 F=1.57.432.077. N. mean IND scores of Malay.S.01). N.S. p<. N. F(2. p<.564.S F=10.
VER and IND subscale scores. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. Therefore. H10. H11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.Therefore. H11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. however. H10. respectively.1. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. 4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. were supported. externally-focused frustration. was supported. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.3 and H11.2.32). freeway urgency. However. The higher the total aggression scores. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.6. In Study 3.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. In Studies 1B and 1C.4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. 151 .2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.3 and H11. freeway urgency.29). VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. were all supported.4. only H11.
p<. B=. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. p<.S. p<. B = .01 B=.370. p<.05 B=. B = .461.01 respectively. N.216.505. However. p<.235. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . p<.01.01 and B = . p<.387. p<. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. N.01.263.01 B=. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. 1C.483. respectively. p<.540.545. p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. respectively. Study 2 and Study 3.881. p<.520.01 B=.370.428.565.01 B=. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.121. p<.01 B=. Also.01 respectively. 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.01 Study 1C B=. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. but not in Study 3.32: 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.01 B=.491.05 B=. Study 1C and Study 3. B = . B = .01.01. but not in Study 3. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 and B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.385. p<. p<.183. p<.5).01 B=. p<. B = .Table 4.01 Study 3 B=.229. p<.01. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<. and B = .S. p<.438.05 (see Figure 4. the higher were total BIT scores. p<.048. p<. F=3.204.01 B=. 1B. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. B = .01. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 B=. Similarly.263. and B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.380.324.
aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 46. and B=-. Study 1C and Study 3.12. p<.929.01.100. F=81.362. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. In other words. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.297. F=100.6. p<.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. p<.01. R2=.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. for Study 1B. 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. R2=.172. respectively.076. B=-.961.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Kurtosis=-.003. Kurtosis=-.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<.6. R2=.00 42. B=-.516.316. The moderating effect of I was significant.131.05.01. p<.645.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.00 44.271.
6). 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. R2=. R2=.01. F=71. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.117.431.387. R2=. R2=.01. Kurtosis=.01 respectively. 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=.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. Kurtosis=.297.6.897.271.01.297.109. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01. p<. Kurtosis=-.369. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.794. respectively). R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2=.757.694. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. respectively).507.704. F=78.606. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.015.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. F=91. R2=. p<.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. p<. p<. F=94.069. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . p<.015.360. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.12.088.271. p<. Kurtosis=-.01 and B = .
p<. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. and H12. and the moderation effect was not significant. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .01 and B = . p<. that the internality.1. H12.3.7). H12. Therefore.332. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. 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. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.01 respectively.302.significant. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. B = .7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. 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 4.2.
and about revenge F(2. 249) = 4. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<.01. 156 . male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.6. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.314. p<. t(250) = 3. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.279. p<.737.01). Only H12.343.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. F(2. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. However. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. p<. p<.05. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.885.1.01 but not on about the derogation of others. 4.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.3. p<. 248) = 3. H122 and H12. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. t(249)=2. 249) = 5. with the sample of taxicab drivers.05. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.05). Also.01.263.05).
H13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. p<. H14. B = .364. p<. on total BIT score were also tested. the higher were total BIT scores. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. were supported. This means that. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. was partially supported. B = .01.394. p<. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. B = . was not supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. freeway urgency. were supported. p<. (that thoughts about physical aggression.379.6.307.01. This means that. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. H13.01.2 and H14. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.1. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. B = . p<. Therefore. B = . p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.2. the higher the total HAT scores. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.192. 157 .01.413. B = .01 and B = . p<.1 and H13.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.277. 4.01.3. was supported. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.01 and destination-activity orientation.224. p<.3. respectively.Therefore.01. H14. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.
013. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=57.911.01. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores.-554. 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 4.809.297. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.072). and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<. R2=.565. F=55. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. p<. In other words.01. Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=.188. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. Physical Aggression and Revenge.002.4.8).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. B = .297. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.085).6. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05. p<. R2=.
B = . F=59.246. p<. However.3. H15.297. were supported. 4. was supported. R2=. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.294.1 and H15. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. p<. 159 . that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.026.092). B = . p<. H15.33).Aggression was significant.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.01. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.01.475. Kurtosis=. Therefore.2. that total HAT score would 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=. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.207.01. was not supported.6.
1.S S S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S N.S S S S P.S N.S S S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S N.S N.1.S 1C P.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S N.Table 4.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.2.S 3 P.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.S N.S 160 .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 S S S S S N.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S.1.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.1.S P.1.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S P.S N.S P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.S N.S P.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.S S P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S N.S N.S S S N.S N. S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H22.214.171.124: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.S P.S S S N.
S N.S S S N.S N.S S N.S S S S S S S N. P.S N.S S S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S 161 .S S S S S P.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.S N.S P.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S 3 N.S S S S S S S S P.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10. blank=Not Applicable N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.S 2 N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.3.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S P.S N.S N.S N.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S P.S N.S P.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S 1B N.S STUDY 1C N.S S S N.S N. N.Table 4.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S P.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.
Table 4.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Not Supported.S S N.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.3: 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.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N.S 162 .S S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Partially Supported.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S 2 3 P.S P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S N. P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S S S S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.
F2. F4 F1. Study 2: motorcycle driver.02 d.7. AQ. BHS. Table 4.96 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. F3.00000 . F3.093 . F4 χ2 49.00000 . P I. C. P. AQ. C.58 35.00126 . F2. F4 F1. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).00111 . two were worthy of further examination.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. 163 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F2. F3. Aggression (AQ).34.90 110.060 Note: Internality (I). P.102 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F2.087 .96 RMSEA .38 100.7 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 8.05522 . Hopelessness (BHS).80 104. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.93 . 2002). P. HAT I.068 . F2. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.97 . HAT I.00000 .4. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. BHS I. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 4. F3. e. C. P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P. AQ. C. Hopelessness.97 63. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.g. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. AQ I. freeway urgency (F2).045 . BHS. Externality Chance (C).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F4 F1. HAT Proximal Factors F1. F3 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. C. F2.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.93 . F4 F1.93 .f. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.
RMR=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. but not as good as for C5. To aid this discussion. ECVI=.48. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. with path coefficients = -. which are detailed in sect. d. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. AGFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4. d. . goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.23 respectively (see Figure 4. 5.91.10). C6. Externality (Powerful-Other).26. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.42. with path coefficients = -. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. GFI=.32. and PGFI=. Externality (Chance). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. .96. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. CFI=.98).92) on accident involvement.10).42.26.02. . GFI=.97. .3.97.=33.043.f.97. RMSEA=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.96. RMSEA=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. CFI=.060.13. For Model C5.=24. values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).045.92) on accident involvement.35. For Model C5.94. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.28 and . . An alternate model.14. of the BIT score. Externality (Chance).29 and . For Model C6.destination-activity orientation (F4). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.51 and PGFI=.f. AGFI=. .99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. For Model C6.5.043. RMR=. ECVI=. 164 .
51* .97 d. *p<.045 RMR=.99 P-value = .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.58* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.92* Accident Involvement .32* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.79* .63* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ) .57* Injury Occurrence . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.f =24 CFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .97 GFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .50* .02 GFI=.39* .63* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. *p<.31* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.92* Accident Involvement .96 d.77* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ) .98 P-value = .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .060 RMR=.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.56* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.f =33 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.
35).80) on the accident involvement. HOS. 167 .35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. HAT-R PHY. ANG. freeway urgency (F2). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).91. F4 F1. GFI=. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-D. ANG. RMSEA=.41 d. HOS.00000 .10.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.084 . VER. HOS. HAT-R PHY.=61.00000 . HAT-D. F4 F1. HAT-P. F4 χ2 108. IND.080 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).081 .00000 GFI RMSEA . F3.91 . F2. Angry (ANG). F3 F1. HOS. VER. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. CFI=. d. F3.078. 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). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2.91 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).66). HAT-R PHY. Hostility (HOS). ANG. IND. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.91 . F3.65 and . the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.f. HAT-D.084 . F3 F1.00111 . HAT-P.66 131.In addition. HAT-P. HAT-P. F2. Indirect aggression (IND).13 respectively.95).92 . The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. IND PHY.93 . Aggression (AQ).41. path coefficients = . IND. VER. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. ANG.73 169.00000 . F2. HAT-D. ANG. IND. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.94 169.66 153.f. F2. Verbal aggression (VER). HOS.
BIT2=Freeway Urgency.63* Indirect Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .078 RMR=.83* .f =61 CFI=.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .61* .05 .41 GFI=.91 d.72* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .95 P-value = .62* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .13* Model Statistics χ2=153. *p<.80* Accident Involvement . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.29* Hostility .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .58* .000 N=252 RMSEA=.69* Anger .66* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. P. C.66) on the accident involvement.047. P.98). p-value GFI RMSEA I.=28.7. freeway urgency (F2).94.07580 . 169 . F3. Hopelessness (BHS).94 . F4 F1. GFI=.94 . C.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. the participants were motorcycle drivers. P I.36).12 d.06722 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.86 23 28 23 . F2. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). CFI=.2 Study 2 In Study 2. d. F3.12). BHS I.f. RMSEA=. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.12.33 33. F2. F3 F1.047 . path coefficients = -. F4 39.80 respectively (see Figure 4. Externality Chance (C). C. 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. BHS F1.f.062 Note: Internality (I).17631 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.058 .95 . F2. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.65 and .4. Externality Powerful-Other (P).
047 RMR=.95 d. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =23 CFI=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.88* Crash Occurrence .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.78* .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .12 GFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.65* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .89* . *p<.83* BIT3 .99 P-value = .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.57* Internality -.70* BIT4 .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
97 . AQ F1. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.95 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.061.37). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). CFI=.f.95. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). F4 50.061 Note: Internality (I). I.35265 .00524 . P. P Proximal Factors F1. C. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. P.20 and . F4 Crash Occurrence 31.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.f. 37. F3. 171 .13). d.7. F2. path coefficients = -. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.03084 . AQ F1.22 23 . AQ F1. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.3 Study 3 In Study 3. Internality and AQ. Hopelessness (H).94 . C.95).079 Injury Occurrence I.=21. F3.40) on the accident involvement. Externality Chance (ExC).20 respectively (see Figure 4.93 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. C. GFI=.06743 .027 I.39 21 .59 17 . the participants were taxi drivers. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). but not Externality. C. F3. RMSEA=.82 28 .4. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2. freeway urgency (F2). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.39. F3.
BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .74* -.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.20* Externality (Chance) .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .f =21 CFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .39 GFI=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.95 P-value = .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.95 d.061 RMR=.63* BIT3 . *p<.13 .39* Internality -.61* BIT4 .
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. 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. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. Therefore. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.4. 2 and 3 are satisfied. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 4.8. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). consistent with path analysis results. and. 173 . Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.38). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.8. Table 4.39).
8.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Table 4.8.40). 1B and 1C. where the 174 .40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.41). behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). in Studies 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.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. Table 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.
BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.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 motorcycle drivers in Study 2. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . For taxicab drivers in Study 3.
Study 2: t(421)= -4.663. Study 2: t(372)= -3.162. p <. Study 1A vs.01.01. p <. p <.993.01.837. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 1A vs. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 1A vs. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and 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. 176 . It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(421)= -3.41: 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 4.665. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -2.Table 4. p <. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01.426.05. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.9. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <.442.01. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.01. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 1B vs.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1B vs. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.
Study 1B vs.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. p <. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. t(986)= 34. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01.837.01. Study 1B vs.01.433.402. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. t(986)= 5.801. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. t(986)= 6. 177 . Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 1C vs. p <.211.926.186.775. p <. t(986)= 3. Study 1A vs.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Study 2: t(372)= -6.977. Study 1A vs. p <.01.484.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01. t(986)= 7. and t(986)= 35.200.747. t(253) = 2. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 1A vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. “freeway urgency”. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6. Study 2: t(421)= -3.861.577. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(372)= -7.9.01.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. t(253)= 8. t(986)= 37.261. p <. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 1C vs. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. p <. and to injury occurrence.01. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -5. p <. Study 1C vs.9.01.01.01.614.01. p <.01. p <.687. Also.01.704.01. 4. 4. p <. respectively.
01. p <. p <. 178 .946. p <.737. t(253)= 11. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. and t(253)= 37.01. t(253)= 8. p <. t(253)= 31. Also. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 35.982.01.01. p <.016.01and to injury occurrence.01. respectively.977.881. p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. “freeway urgency”.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.567. t(253)= 8.01. t(253)= 39. p <.
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Elander et. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. freeway urgency. upon examination. In an earlier study. al. Elander et al.1). 1993. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 2002b).4. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. 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. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. including gender. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. multi-factorial perspective.. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 1995. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). (1993).1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. They found gender. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Often. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Evans. 2. 1991).2.
BIT. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. except with taxicab drivers. 180 . All too often. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element.total BIT score and component scores. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. As a result. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. is that factors interact with each other. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. hopelessness. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. if different. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. though. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. Further. 1991). But findings were more complex than that. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. In the present research. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. In other words. In the contextual mediated model. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. the proximal variable. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 126.96.36.199). 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
social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . respectively).6 months as licensed drivers. as well. Because of occupational demands.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.2 years.1 months.63. SD=22. By virtue of their age and occupation. SD=1. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. and 36. SD=11.16. Inclán. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.3. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Of course.7 months.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.5. SD=131. For taxicab drivers. They were also more experienced (266. SD=.hierarchy. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. SD=1. For taxicab drivers. 20.53. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.01years.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. 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.25 years. 5. respectively). internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. there are other possible influences.1. In the present study. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.
in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. rife with bureaucracy. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. 2005). In an environment where career choice. 2003. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. financial matters and social affiliations are made. Devashayam. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. however. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. perhaps due as argued earlier. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. The finding that Indian- 188 . corrupt practices. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. when compared to Canadian students. influence peddling and status-related privileges. along with selfpromotion skills. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. were necessary to succeed. Carment (1974) also found. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. spousal selection.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).
Gomez.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. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. and. including locus of control. 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. Indeed. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.5% annually from 9.8 million in 1996. 5. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1998. 1999. Nandy.3. 1966. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. but two possible influences stand out. 1999). Sendut.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. by extension. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and.7 in 1996. 1981).5 million in 1991 to 11. an internal locus of control. as a group. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. Salih &Young. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. where Cheung et al. 1999. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. Again. 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. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 2002. as a result.
318). Clayton. Nonetheless. 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. Huff. by the enraged driver. more recently. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002). 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. bringing them closer together in outlook. Miller & Rodgers. 2001) In the present research. Dukes. Oetting & Salvatore. Jenkins. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2008.4 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. King & Parker. 2001. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 5. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Miles & Johnson. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 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. 2000. Lawton & Nutter.women’s friendship patterns. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Parkinson. 2003. Consistently. Lynch. 2002. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life.
but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Petrilli et al. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. physical aggression. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Finland and the Netherlands. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). With taxicab drivers.conditions. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. Further. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Underwood et al. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Deffenbacher. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Parker. Underwood et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. on a journey by journey basis. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. during such incidents. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Oetting et al. 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. 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”).
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.. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. as well. the world and others). although still significantly. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. The effects of aggression on behaviour. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). In essence.strongly. in the samples studied here. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 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. 1997). but not when they involved the derogation of others. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. however. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. That is. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. 2006). Such responses. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al..
1979. “in ergonomics. 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. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). It is moderated by cognitive processes. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. Hochschild. but there may be more to it than that. Meichenbaum. 401). 193 . 1995. 1990. like any other mental task. Generally. 2004. Similarly. 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 original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that.are determined by chance or fate. and particularly with negative emotion. 1994. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. p. Language loaded with emotional content. Downe & Loke. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. Novaco.e. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. Certainly. (2003). The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. or self-talk. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. true to operant learning principles. and also by attributions regarding locus of control..e.. 1987. 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. 1977). Finally.
hostile automatic thoughts. Carretie. 2004. 2002. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 1997). This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. In fact. 2000. 1993). 2000.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Performance (e.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.Robbins.. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Tomkins. Watson & Wan. Trabasso & Liwag. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. p. Making sense of. Stein. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 2005). so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Martin. Lambie & Marcel. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. and attempting to exercise control over. 2002. 5. aggressive emotionality. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Mercado & Tapia.5. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Dien. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 1996. 162). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.g. Taylor & Fragopanagos.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. MartinLoeches. 1999. Hinojosa.
. Karl Jöreskog. According to Williams. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. In addition. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. or latent.. Hair et al. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. Finally. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. 2006). variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. including dependent and independent variables. and perhaps most important. or independent variables.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. a multivariate technique. 2000).434). allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. 2006). involved in the analysis. Structural equation modelling (SEM).. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. 2004. First. explain criterion. Second. 195 . or dependent. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. who in 1970. factors represented by multiple variables. 2006). 2004. EQS and AMOS. Gavin and Hartman (2004). researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. p. 1998). 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. By estimating and removing measurement error. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. When composing a model. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman.
Hair et al. TLI. when assessing the fits of measurement models. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. Shook et al. (2006). CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. Therefore.5. (2004) has been critical of most studies. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. GFI. SRMR. In the present research. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. 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. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following: The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. etc) 196 . but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices.e. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. Sümer (2003) added that. Williams et al. the goodness of fit index (GFI). model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. CFI. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. as suggested by Hair et al. (2004) noted that. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Shook.5. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. the comparative fit index (CFI). and the root mean square residual were included. Ketchen.e.
2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 2006. RMSEA lower than . so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. At the same time. we would argue. 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.. 1998). it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Maruyama. CFI and CFI) greater than . It is argued here that.. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2000). As a general rule. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.5. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Md-Sidin. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. GFI. 2001. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. CFI.90. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Structural equation modelling should.. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. significant p-values can be expected. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 1998.g.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Fit index values (e. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Sambasivan & Ismail.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Hair et al.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models.In the present research. 2001. 5. 2006).
statistical. However. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. destination-activity orientation. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. 4. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. 88). “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. stating that. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.7. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . In the case at hand. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. and practical considerations (p. In some cases. 1C5 and 1C6.soundness.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. More importantly. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. Thus.10) excluded the fourth factor. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.1. There is some support for this position in the literature. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. as suggested by Byrne (2001).3). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. two structural equation models. 158). while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable.
97 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.91 0.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.043 129. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.034 97. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.42 11.02 0.99 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.98 0.96 0.045 0. 199 .499 0. Injury Occurrence 35. P.97 1. C. AQ. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. C.96 1. P.94 0.02 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.48 30. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.02 0. F2. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.909 0.060 0. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based.97 0.Table 5. AQ.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.97 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F2.
Parker. they should be dropped. 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. Schwebel. Kayumov. 2006. Manstead & Stradling. Reason. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Hair et al. based on the notion that each variable included may. 1995. 1990. 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. but still acceptable. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.1). Nahn & Shapiro. et al. 200 . when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Storey. 2006). For practical reasons. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. in particular. it is 0. farther along.48. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. However. By selecting Model 1C5. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. while for Model 1C6.. goodness-of-fit. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1996). in this analysis.42. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact.
externality-powerful other. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.g. externality-powerful other.4. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. The results suggested that the alternative model.21).5. via BIT.14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . As observed from the investigation of structural paths.29). with five distal factors (internality. Evans.35 and . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.1). Rothengatter. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = -. freeway urgency. .28 and . In Study 1C. 2003). on crash outcomes. and hostile automatic thoughts). for automobile drivers sampled. 2001. externality-chance. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.66). aggression. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.45).34) and injury occurrence (r = . Sümer. externalitychance.26.35. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 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.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. .6.28 respectively).5. 1991.5. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . .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.
202 . 5.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.5. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.41). was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . externality-chance.55).24). 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. Aggression.20) and injury occurrence (r = . on the other hand. crash occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . crash occurrence (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.25).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.23) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration.65 and .4. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. had a better fit than other alternative models. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. Results indicated that the first alternative model. which sampled motorcyclists.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration.
freeway urgency. For motorcyclists. externally-focused frustration. Results indicated that the third alternative model.3).5.20 and . crash occurrence. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. for the sample of taxicab drivers. had no significant effect on BIT scores. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. via BIT. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. externally-focused frustration. externality-chance. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. However. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. crash occurrence.5. with four distal factors (internality.4. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externality-powerful other. as a result. in turn and indirectly.5. Finally. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. freeway urgency. for crash outcomes. their crash occurrence. Distal factors.6. externality-chance. had a better fit than alternative models. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. 5. 203 . aggression). such as internality. externality-powerful other and aggression). The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 4. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. hopelessness. to measure outcome. with the sample of taxicab drivers.
by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. To a large extent. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 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.6. a total of five samples were taken. 2005. Sekaran (2003) points out. Further. 2005).5. In the present research.6 5. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. Huguenin.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. 204 . both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. chosen at random from taxi stands. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. 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. however. 278279). 2004). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were.
13 years (SD = 1. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented.2%). Selangor. 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.2% and Study 2: 99. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Sabah. 205 . Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. in Malaysia. Study 1B: 100%.6% (Study 1A: 99.In Malaysia. Since. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.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. with a mean age of 20. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Table 5.31.6%. The most populous state. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.2).to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.55). Study 1C: 99. as elsewhere.
in this case.000 2. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 2.9 9.2 (13) 11.7 (2) 2.9 (3) 2. In both cases. For that reason.000 3.100.2: 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) 7.1 (7) 8.880 3.7 (14) But.5 (8) 3.0 12.300.0 4.000 Per cent of national population 26.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.6 (10) 7. Table 5.9 (9) 7.5 (4) 4.000 1.000 1. 206 .674 1.2 7. Not all states have the same number of drivers.500.286 1. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.500 1.503.576 2.807 733.6 5.Table 5.150. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.4 5.188 1.3 (12) 11.6 2. Table 5.818.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.2 11.004.8 (6) 6.6 0.000 215.887.0 8.8 6.200.2 3.260.6 6.2 (11) 12. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.396.387.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.2 (1) 3.2 (5) 0. 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.
029 273.490 525.75 4.70 12.35 4.05 2.600 135.19 3.43 2.428.163 10.4 4.064 9.24 2.20 12.27 14.588.230 266.89 3.28 3.144 12.34 11.19 7.96 3.170 13.76 3.24 0.003 10.37 3.768 6.22 17.36 8.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.98 0.93 9.212 39.45 9.725 70.617 10.88 2.92 25.774 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 12.93 0.606 24.19 4.55 7.041 92.735 165.251 324.13 6.026 10.84 11.90 5.635 1.467 25.68 7.561 1.34 3.97 12.88 3.496 187.70 3.63 207 .91 2.85 1.093 5.104 6.920 181.137 698.Table 5.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.785 393.50 29.198 156.16 2.46 8.
467 25.283 770.221 36.93 9.75 5.656 821.36 8.305 276.617 10.59 12.64 2.992 776.144 12.606 24.212 39.38 4.768 6.133 705.029 273.45 2.79 13.59 1.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.561 1.615.03 4.288 444.003 10.958 % 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 12.76 3.63 11.43 2.170 13.92 25.104 6.48 1.995 233.727 161.93 7.64 1.63 13.82 9.46 5.88 2.33 4.20 15.66 11.49 0.49 12.22 3.28 3.14 7.725 70.4 4.98 0.112 347.37 3.856 310.10 9.27 14.46 14.679 90.026 10.88 3.064 9.35 4.02 7.74 208 .Table 5.989 6.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.02 10.38 0.722 255.15 5.
was representative of a high risk driver population. at least. Of course.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. it is possible to say that sampling.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . 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. participants came from – or. At least on these dimensions.Table 5.4. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. Table 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.5: 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) . it can be argued that they were.824** .903** .814** 1 . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.3 and 5.
accidents. Exposure. violations and accidents should be linked together. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . 1998. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. e. 296). 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. Rothengatter.6. however. accident distributions by age. as in other psychological research. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. 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. 2001). Hatakka. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Elander et al. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. the data has to be disaggregated. Keskinen. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Again. 1979). Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. The problem.. However. 1998. attitudinal factors. unless the variation within the group is very small. demographic factors.g. in studying driving behaviour. 5.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002).
as well.. the more information is lost through memory lapses. 211 . Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.g. Yet. in studies of driving behaviour. therefore. 5. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. 1996). 13).3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al.6.. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. The assumption. In future studies. muscle tension. Visser and Denis (2004). all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. though. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. blood pressure. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. for instance. combined interview and observational methods. as in a study reported by Chalmé. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. 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. In the present research. Particularly.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. the longer the time period for data collection. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. 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.g.
in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. Mercer. 1999). Unfortunately. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 .6.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. 5. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 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. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 1997. Second. 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. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 2002). individual standard. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. First. 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.In the present research. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. 1971). as well. and the hypothesis (H2.
in other words. But. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 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. 1993). Slovic & Tversky. but not always. Specifically. 213 . 121). the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. but because they are inherently easier to think about. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. Wood & Boyd.frequency that were used in this research. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 2003. because they have taken place recently. Often. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. although this has not been firmly established. 1993. 181). on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 1973. In much the same way. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. p. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 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. 1982). Kahneman. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman.. 2008). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 2003). 2004). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 1974). in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 2002). eventful or recent. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. frequency or distribution in the world (p.
. 2001) . for example. on one hand. 1991). and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. Deffenbacher et al. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. in their studies of roadway aggression. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. (2003). asked participants to record the time of day. Of course. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. 2000). road conditions. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . 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. Sansone. Finally.In the Malaysian environment. where driving histories generally include lengthy. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. during periods of low traffic volume. 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. Similarly.
Ranney. 1991). 2004). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. Good theories are simple. selfreported measure used here. Summala. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . categorical perceptions of driving frequency. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.g. In the present research. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. 1994). collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature.7 5. 1985. 5. 1997). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 2004). during the study design process. It was felt. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. In addition. have high information content. 2002. 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. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 2005). are testable and contain no contradictions. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. Further research is required. To summarise. Michon. 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.studies undertaken. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.7. 2005).1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. 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. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King..
if they are modest in ambition. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. 1997. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. often in graphical form (Grayson. Hauer (1987). or represent processes. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. The answer to this question is possibly yes. 94). check facts. The answer is probably not. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . Grayson (1997) agreed.patterns of relationships. p. at times. stating that. on the other hand. in particular to structure data. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. 294). 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”. 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. 32). The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data.
The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. who argued that. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. 304). Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).3). Yet. In the present research. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). 95-96). In this case. and if they are resultscentred (pp. for instance. In 217 . it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 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. hopelessness. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 2.
and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.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). openness. With several exceptions. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. Kerlinger (2000) and others. while still very much a model and not a theory.3. conscientiousness. much current research.7. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. While the present research 218 . extraversion. According to Ranney (1994). The contextual mediated framework. psychoticism. for instance. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. 5. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. as defined by Grayson (1997). it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. anxiety. 2003). 2005) were included as distal variables. 2. sensation seeking (Sümer. crash-free driving. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect.other studies.4). not on everyday driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories.. depression. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving.
while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. They argued that locus of control. or at least to react more slowly. As a result. Following this reasoning. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. On the other hand. 219 . those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. Within their proposed conceptual framework. no matter how reliable a safety device. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. Conversely. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control.did not test any of those theories specifically. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. 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.
scarce resources for screening drivers. Gidron & Davidson. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. 2002. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and.7. Typically. 2004). whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. though. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels.In the present research.. Specifically. once identified. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. task capability (Fuller. Summala. 1996). 2005. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 1996). al. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al.3 Driver Selection. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. 5. Christ et al. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 1982). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. 1997. 220 . external locus of control and hostile attributions. could be screened out.
1961.4). education. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. for the last fifty years. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.5. 1). the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1957). 5.7. 1957.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.7. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). and machines are highly intricate (p. From this has emerged the growing 221 . At the same time. Slinn.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.7. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. or legal intervention. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. World Health Organisation. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.4. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. Unlike 100 years ago. teams of humans.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. In the case of LKA. Maggio & Jin.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Stough. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Suda & Ono. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. 222 . 2001). These have been applied to in-car. 2003).6). is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 2001). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. for instance. 2005). Sadano. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. At the same time. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. (Bishop. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Murazami.6). depending on environmental factors. or the adaptive automation concept.
1999. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Fountaine and Knotts. 2003. Black. traffic 223 . 1997). 2004. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Richardson & Downe. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). 1993. Ulrich. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 2000). initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. Brown & Noy. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. was associated crash outcomes. The present research also found that freeway urgency. in particular to pursue environmental. 1998). 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.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. changes in traffic speed. Herzog. Parsons. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Tassinary. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar.6).
and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. questions of alternative urban structure. 309). and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. p. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. however. 1996. journey purpose or other human factors. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. 1991). engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. inexperienced drivers. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Dietze. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 224 . and whether this information varies according to the situation. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. 1996. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Proctor. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Probably. however. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 1992).efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand.
“rumble strips” in expressways.Table 5. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point.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. departure warning. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). infrastructure. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. keeping. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. lane road conditions. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. transitions for. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. Hi H 1. etc. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. 225 . unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. 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. and likelihood of. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.
1. the host vehicle. traffic lights) safe. 226 .1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. H 1..(continued) H 1.1. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. than the safety standard. 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. point. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. the systems intersection modification. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. including those in adjoining lanes.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. ACC systems provide modifications. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. Radar. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. are travelling. generally pilot”. to in-vehicle display terminals. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.
1. signs with calming or vehicles. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. Such devices include chicanes. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. “Speed tables”. 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. H 1.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. environment and other frustrating stimuli.3 vertical displacement. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. 227 . at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.
weather-related road conditions. notification of construction ahead. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. safety messages. 228 . 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.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions.1. H 1. at least. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. This information allows drivers to avoid or. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.
2001). Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. teachers or the police. 73). and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.5. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. 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.7. It suggests that. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. however. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. The present research suggests that. like community centres or places of worship. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. 229 .4. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. to some extent.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance.
265). legal measures change least often. Second. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. that “Of these three approaches. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. 1978. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors.7.4. 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. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. from the findings of the present research. 2007. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. First. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. N6). and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. was studied in a 230 .5. p. 1030). The bias of false consensus. or an internal locus of control. They also stated. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. p. however. such as visibility of enforcement. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Azjen & Fishbein. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations.” 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). Stradling. 498). Ajzen. Reason & Baxter. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. is allowed to occur in a Just World. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. 2001. after all. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Parker. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 1992). on the other. 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 . 1991.sample of drivers by Manstead. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. By doing so. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws.
232 . By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. or not adhere.drivers’ decisions to adhere. Similarly. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). to traffic regulations.
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. Sümer. age. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). ethnicity. Results have indicated that. Wállen Warner & Åberg. locus of control. A contextual mediated model. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. In doing so. 2002. it was concluded that driver experience. hopelessness. In the present research. 2005. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. as expected. 2003. Sümer et al. Iverson & Rundmo. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries.. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. gender. when risky. as proximal to the crash outcomes. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors.. 233 . with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern.g.
the best fit usually implies the best model.. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. Hoyt. This is Of the variables studied. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . 1986. In the present research. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. or external locus of control. 1973). Montag & Comrey. 2003). 1982). measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. task capability (Fuller. and accident risk (e. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. Harrell. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. In most cases. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical.g. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. it is argued here. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. However. Further. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. 1987). Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge.In the current literature. 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). Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. as well as statistical grounds. 1995. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 1974)..
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. in combination. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. road engineering and ergonomics. Groeger & Rothengatter. as well. Huguenin. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. For example.g. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. they 235 .. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. 2005. Several authors (e. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. 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. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. 1998. cultural anthropology. Rothengatter. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations.aggression were observed. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. However.
In the present research. 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. 313). Indeed. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. management. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 236 . Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. injuries and death. educational and enforcement spheres. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures.
T..  Abdullah. 237 .  Ahmad Hariza. T. Musa.R.. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. (2002). Puzzles & Irritations.  af Wählberg. 31-39. (2003).E. 169-177. (2005).  Abdul Rahman. (1999). 473-486. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 35. Mohd Zulkifli. and Anurag.S. (1993). (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 1867-1874.B. Accident Analysis and Prevention.H.. M. 12. A. K. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. (2002).  Åberg. A. L. (1979). A. Psychological Testing and Assessment. R.E. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. (2007). H. Journal of Safety Research. 581-587.  Aiken. P. Radin Umar. and Pederson.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. individual crash level approach.  af Wählberg. 25. Subramaniam.H. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. and Kulanthayan. Petaling Jaya. 289-296.A. 5. A. Drinking and driving: intention. R. Mohd Nasir.. MY: Pearson. H. S. Third edition.. M. (2003). and Law. Crash data analysis: collective vs. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data.  Adolphs. P. 38(5). Bahrain. L. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. N. (2003).  Abdul Kareem. 10(2). Neural systems for recognizing emotion. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC).
(Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology. Day. W. and Kecklund (2001). Annual Review of Psychology. (2005). Tubré. C. Women’s Studies International Forum. and Christian. 33(3). M. M. S. 23. Human Factors.C. 623-633. Journal of Sleep Research. (1997). Edwards. and Kerrich. S. (1987). T.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. 10(6). A. 340-342. and Haigh. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. I. Learning. J. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. M. 27-58. B... J. W.G.D.H.105-110. 7. In Kuhl. Bell. 238 . (1985).  Archer..  Armstrong. gender and early morning accidents. A. T. Aggressive Behavior. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. 10.  Ajzen. and Beckmann. J.  Amin. In Stroebe. 50(2). I. Age. Current Psychology: Developmental. and Fishbein. Social. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study.  Ajzen. (2004). (1991). 404-415. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 303-313. Personality. I. 187-195.  Åkerstedt. 47. (Eds. and Tubré. (2001). I. A. (2003). and Hewston. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. Biometrics.J. 291-307. 22(3). J. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. J.E.A. Ajzen. The theory of planned behaviour.  Ajzen.J. (1952). 52.T. London: John Wiley & Sons.  Arthur. 179-211.  Arbous. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.  Armitage. E. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes.
V. NL: Styx.F.M. In Barjonet. 89-105. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). (2002). W.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. (1997). R. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4(2).D.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 279-284.  Barjonet. (Ed. 14-29). 34. October 18).C. 1173-1182. 2(4). (1998).S.M. P. M.31-42.L. P. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Barrett.  Barjonet. In Trimpop. (2001). Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. P-E.  Aylott. (Eds. 21-30). R..bakrimusa. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. 231-234. Arthur. (1986). Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. strategic and statistical considerations. K. and Dischinger. 34. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. and Kenny. R. M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. F.  Asian Development Bank (2005). and Carbonell Vaya E. (1991). GJ. and Alexander. S. R. Boston: Kluwer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.. D. G. and Tortosa.A. and Carson. B. Human Performance.. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. Groningen. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. (2005.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 239 . 2007 from http://www. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.  Bakri Musa. Manila: Philippines.A.  Baron.-E.  Aschenbrenner.  Ballesteros. and Tortosa. (2002).  Austin. In Rothengatter. Retrieved April 4. 51(6). Accident Analysis and Prevention.-E. T. (Eds. When hope becomes hopelessness. (1994).M. and Biehl. F. Wilde.
5-37. 19. 218-229). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.A.J. R. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. New York: Cambridge University Press. Health Education and Behavior. (Ed. 240 .T. (1987a).F. Weissman. and Berg. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.F.  Beck. 149-178). and Simons-Morton (2002). 73-84. A.. (1993).  Beck.  Beck.C.  Benzein.T.. (1999). (1993). P. 88. A. New York: Brunner/Mazel.T.C. In (Flinders. J. Palliative Medicine. Hostility and Violence. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (1975).) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. A. Cognitive models of depression. 1146-1149. New York: Teachers College Press. The level of and relation between hope. Theory: the necessary evil. M.. 588-606. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. and Mills. and Steer.G. Hartos.. New York: Meridian. In Rubin. L. In Zeig. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.T.G. A. A. 157-179).E. and Weissman.S.T. and Bonnett. Journal of the American Medical Association. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. (1996). (Ed. (pp.T. (2005).K.  Bentler. (1980). Beck. A. Cognitive therapy.M. A. A. E. 234-240. D. 234(11). J. Lester. D.H.  Beck. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.T. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. G. (1987b). 29(1). (1974).  Beck. A. (1976).) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. E. A.  Beck. Kovacs. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Psychological Bulletin. 1(1).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. 42  Becker. D.  Belli. (Eds. and Loftus. R. D. H.. and Trexler. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. K.  Beck. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.
(2006). Accident analysis and Prevention. 43.  Bettencourt.A. (1995). 391-399. 472-481  Binzer. Williams. 313-322.C.  Bernama. (1981). E. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. A. 39-55. 132(5).. and Geller. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. J. New York: McGraw Hill. T. 751-777.php?id=185148. Malaysian National News Agency. F.  Blasco. 15(1).  Blacker. A.A. M. McKee. and Haney. and Valentine. Benjamin.bernama. Journal of Personality Assessment. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics.com. Managing the high costs of road deaths. 45(1). Applied Ergonomics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. March 12).E. B. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 38(3). S. R.  Boff.S. New York: Routledge. D. 37-40. F.. (1994). Retrieved March 30. and Bonino.. Introduction to Ergonomics. K.my/bernama/v3/printable. Talley. R.S.J. (2006.  Bina. Psychological Bulletin. 2007 from http://www. T. Applying Psychology in Organizations. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. M. 53. J. (2001).  Blumenthal. Stress and Coping. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.. Psychology and road safety. 241 . 37. 95-104. S. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. and Shimmin. 44-51. (2006).  Boyce.  Bridger. Anxiety. (2002).B. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry.D. (1984). Ben-Zur. 34(1).. R. H. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Graziano.
(1997). (2005).P. 267-278. 345-352.  Brindle. Levine. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 29-38  Brodsky. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. I. 219-241.  Brown. and Wilde.  Burns. (1989). R. and Carbonell Vaya. T. (Eds. 641-649.D. Goldzweig. and Cudeck. W. I.. (1948).E.K. R. T. I. C. Political Geography. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. 9-19). (1992). D.S.S. I. Schlundt. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. and Ghiselli. G.C. (2000). (2002). (2004). R. C.  Bunnell. 21. 4(4).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Brown. 242 . International Journal of Educational Development. and Huguenin.W.. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. 18(2). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 445-455. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour.  Brown. Personality and Individual Differences. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.  Browne. (2007).D. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators.E. In Rothengatter. Haliburton. Ergonomics. T. N.C.  Brown. M.. W. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier..W. observational data and driver records. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. 24. 318-330. and Noy. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. 32(1). E.C. R. 14. 24(1). 20-23. 105-124. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Warren.M. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. 37(4). 27(3). In Rothengatter. E. Briggs. Multivariate Behavioral Research.  Brown. P.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.D.J.G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1995). Amsterdam: Pergamon. (1982). (Eds. G.
Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services..D. Cohn. A. (2003). 45-50. Oxford: Elsevier Science. and Borgatta. In Fuller. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. (2001). M. 47(15). (2004).A. (1974). T. 736-751. and Warren. Parada.. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.  Carmines.. 21. O. In Bohrnstedt.W. Journal of Consulting Psychology. J. R. L. A. E. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. J. (Eds). Hinojosa. (2004). (Eds.  Byrd. Martin-Loeches. Mercado. Human Brain Mapping.. 15981613. 22. Buss..  Byrne.  Byrne. and Kline.  Carsten. (2000). L. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Carment.  Carretie. 290-299. B. International Journal of Psychology. 343-349. M. B.  Cackowski. G.  Buss. F. and Nasar. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.. (1957). The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. (1998). and Cortes. J. Environment and Behaviour.H. (2002). D.P.. E.A. & Santos. Gonzalez. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. and McIver. T. J. and Durkee. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. 65-115). 63-65. W. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. Applications and Programming.M.F.K. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ergonomics. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.W. Multiple perspectives. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. 35(6). M. (1999).G. E.H.L. A.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention.J. J.L. 243 . and Tapia. 31. J.  Caird. 9. (1981). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. M. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Applications and Programming.
(Eds. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Sunway Campus. T.M. 2008 from http://www. F. Cheung. (1985). R. and Yeh. What are we allowed to ask. J.D. Carver. (2007. N6..  Chang. Monash University.pdf 244 . Kuala Lumpur. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved October 15. November 12). 61-71). 21(4). M. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. 467-477. J. R. T.F.  Cheung. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Driving: through the eyes of teens.  Chaplin.H. November). 557-562. Y.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. (2006). gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. The Star.ictct. S. and Nash. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Lim. Visser.  Cheah.P.. Personality and Individual Difference. Matto Grosso do Sul.-L.0.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. (2004). 2007 from http:www.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.-H. New York: Dell. W.W. 41. R. (2000). Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. (2007). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. P. and Denis.  Chalmé. H. and Huguenin.ghipr. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1996). In Rothengatter.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). Howard. S. Brazil. 10(2). Dictionary of Psychology. Taiwan. March 20-22. Retrieved March 31. 109-122. Malaysia.. Campo Grande. D. R.G.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.-H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
..L.C. P. and Huguenin. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.  Chliaoutaks. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. June). C. C.makeroadssafe. 377-390). and Bukasa.. A. 679-684.. (1999). Journal of Safety Research.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. Bakou. E. 13(2).  Chipman. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.. Panosch... G. R. 974-981. Smiley. P. Ward. Retrieved December 7. C. (Eds. E. 245 . J. and Ward. N. S. 24(2). N. 1283-1289.G.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. 196-203.. MacGregor. S.  Christ. P. Demakakos. D. Personality and Individual Differences. Lamsudin.. (1992). and Stiles. Cancer Nursing. A. and Darviri. Towner.pdf  Conrad.K. Time vs.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.D. 28(2). T. (1996). R. 431-443. 38(6).T. In Chmiel. Bartle. and Chan. (2007). Koumaki. Safety at work.S. Chioqueta. hopelessness and suicide ideation. B.E. Y. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. W. London: Wiley-Blackwell. (2000). Bradshaw.. Kasniyah.  Clarke. (2004).P. and Truman. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Chung.  Christie. V.D. M. R... French.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. 39. Tzamalouka.’ Injury Prevention. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.. 255-274). P. T.. (Ed. 33.  Chmiel. Personality traits and the development of depression. N. N. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. (2005). and Lee-Gosselin.M. In Rothengatter. C.. 125-129. 2007 from http://www. M. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. 193-200. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Helmets. and Costello. Cairns. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. (2002). H. 22(3). )2007).
(1961).A. The Star.J.W. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. (2006.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. F.S. (1962).A.  Crombag. K. 20(5). P. 161-175).  Cresswell.my/permalink. 5(1).J. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. N48  de Raedt. and Santos. (1996). February 8). P. 10.thestar.R. In Fuller. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. 246 . Accident proneness.F.L. 21-50. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. 2007 from http://blog. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. October 18). R.. W. R. W. (2005). Applied Cognitive Psychology. (Eds. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier.asp?id-7003.com. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and McRae. N. J. R.D. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. American Psychologist.M. 64. D. L. P.M. G. Retrieved April 5. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.  Cozan.  Davin Arul (2005. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. In Rothengatter. and Froggatt. D. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. and van Koppen. 45-62. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Mental workload. Cooke. H. (1995).  de Waard. Journal of Personality Assessment. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing.  Costa. and Durso. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. T. 152-171.  Davies. and Huguenin. and Patel. Wagenaar. (1991). 95-104. 98-117.  Crittendon. (2002).T. 10. 263. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004).  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. p. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 16(5).
and Carbonell Vaya. R. (Eds.. On the measurement of driver mental workload.  Deffenbacher. and Brookhuis. Oetting. E.B. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. 209-233). Richards.A. In Dewar. 41. Huff. 383-402. (1997). Age differences – drivers old and young.D.W. J.  Devashayam. N. 123132. (2000). E. 34. P.  Deffenbacher. (2004). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 729-730. and Meyer. Petrilli. R.L.L.. (1999). E. 47..  Deffenbacher. and Swaim. Amsterdam: Pergamon. C.C. In Dewar. T. J.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. R. 333-356.L. (1998). and Oetting.. R. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Cognitive Therapy and Research.L. and Olson. (Eds. R. 5-17. Oetting.T. J.E. Lynch.D. J. J.. R.  Dharmaratne. Ergonomics. R.  Dewar.S. 28. and Ameratunga. 50(2).  Deffenbacher. 373-393. 26(1). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.L. Individual differences. and Salvatore. E. de Waard.R. 1-20.N. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. P. T. (2002a). Lynch. K. L. Filetti. S. and Morris. (Eds. In Rothengatter. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. 111-142). Lynch. P.S..R. D. Lynch.L... Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Dewar. 14(12). Women’s Studies International Forum. R.S. 575-590. (2003). and Olson. (2005). (2003). Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. E.E. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. 161-171). Tucson..R.S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.R. S. The expression of anger and its consequences. (1996). T. (2002b). Tucson.  Delhomme. R. Oetting. 27(4). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. E.  Dien.E.F. Personality and Individual Differences. R. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. M. E. T.L. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 247 .
J.R. E. S. A. Women drivers’ behaviour.. R.. December). (2003). 223-231). Miller. and Coie. M. T.  Dobson. 525-535. In Khalid.. Knowledge transfer. (2004.a. Dietze. Jenkins. A. Bahar. M.E.L. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. (Eds. 278-285). (2003). Lim. Malaysia.L. W.A. (1987). M. M. November). Clayton.  Downe.L. A.  Dodge. (Ed. Brown. ‘Fatalism’. C. and Carbonell Vaya. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. Health Education Research.Y. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.T. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. Ebersbach. and Loke. 1146-1158. (2001). and Ballard. J. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. In Dorn.E. 53. 323-331. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.  Dukes.S. 263282. T. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA).) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Nigeria. H.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (Eds. L. Social Science Journal 38.G. R. 248 . J. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive.G.. M.M.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.. and McFadden.  Dula. and Rodgers. D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.D. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. Powers.. (1999)..A. 85-92). C. Lippold. Science & Technology. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Mohd Yusuff. Asian Institute of Medicine. and Mayser. (1999). N. (1997). In Rothengatter.  Downe. 14(2). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2007. and Che Doi. Kedah. T. Ball.P. L.  Draskóczy. 31. 33. S. Amsterdam: Pergamon. R. C. S. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model.  Dixey. K.. Sungai Petani. negative emotional and risky driving. 197208..
Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. Chawky. Retrieved December 25. and French D. R..  Ellis. Annals of Internal Medicine. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 201-22. (2001). (2005). Dumais..D. (1971).  Elander.L. A. 2007 from www.L. (1993). J. 838-844.A. satisfaction and commitment. 17-26). (2002). 249 . G. A. 113. In Lefcourt. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. (1996).. J. Boyer. G.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. 159165.  Dunbar. 69. Journal of Transport Geography. In Underwood. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. C. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. 4(3). Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. 50(13). C.. Ménard-Buteau. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. Psychological Bulletin. 22(4). 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. and Turecki. Annals of Internal Medicine. R. New York: Academic.ictct.  Elangovan. (1984). H. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. 293-300... G. 279-294. (Ed. A. A.  Edwards. N. G.M. 771-782. G. Lesage. A. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Kim. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.B. Czech Republic.  Engel.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (1962). J.  Elvik. 74. (1968). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.pdf  Engel.. (2005). Lalovic.. Leadership and Organizational Development. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. R.R.(Ed. 209-306).. Brno. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. March 20-22. Causal ordering of stress. West.
G.. 81-94. L. W. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.G. 6(1). Patterson. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Klesges. J.  Ferguson. New York: McGraw Hill. and Chambers. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. 86(6).M. (1926). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1991). (1995). L.  Farmer. and Chambers. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. and Alpert..  Evans. and Chambers. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. E.6bil losses yearly. American Journal of Public Health. L. Traffic Safety and the Driver.M. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. 784-786.  Farmer..M. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. 16.J. 55). London: Medical Research Council.000 and RM5.. E. N22. December 10). K.  Evans. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 84). 38). L. Risk Analysis.G. London: Medical Research Council. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. S. Barnard.  Farran.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. and Popovich. (2000).A. B.G. (1996). E. C. S. 19-36. The Star. (1976). (1984). (1939). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. M. London: Medical Research Council. (1986). L.. Herth.  Ey. E. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.S. (1929).  Farmer. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.  Evans. 421-435. E. 250 . p. Hadley. 23(5). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Evans. E.A. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6.
251 .  Fuller. R. (1986). 9. Journal of Safety Research 38. (2004). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.. Belief. Journal of American College Health. R. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 37. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers.A.T. (2006). and Ajzen. S. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.P. Women and traffic accidents. B. S.. Attitude. S. R. M. Tix. and Seiden. 412-426. S. Malays and Indians compared. 207-213.A.H. San Francisco. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. and McCartt. 12(4).  Fuller. causes.E. Teoh.W. 38(5). Ferguson. (1998.  Finn. R.A. I. A. (2005). M. R.18(4). (2005).  Fuller. H. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. 115-134. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. (1974). S.  Fishbein. P. I. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. and Santos. A. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. and Järmark. and Barron.. New York: Knopf. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology.R. 63-77.  Forward. 137-145. and Richardson. Recherche Transports Sécurité. Cross Cultural Management. 51(1). (1975). August). Linderholm. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Bragg. (2002). (2000).  Frazier.  Friedman.W. 66. (2007). Human factors and driving. In Fuller. and Rosenman. 47-55. Intention and Behavior. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. 289-298. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study.  Forward. R. K.. P. (1990).  Fontaine. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. 461-472. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Firestone. J. E. Accident analysis and Prevention. consequences and considerations. 77-97).
and Pender.B. 42(9).  Graham. Rajasingham-Senanayake. In Rothengatter. 203-220. 12(4).  Galovski. Ergonomics.A... Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 252 . 540-546. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. T.T.  Gomez. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. 6. 487-491. (1977). Hillsdale. (1999). Y. 13-21. E. E.. N. (1949).A. E.  Glass. McHugh.  Ghiselli. 167-202). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. 58(1). and Brown. Mutu.  Ghazali. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. and Gomez. Behavior Paterns. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. J. R.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components.. Malta. R. Gal. L. (1996). Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. (2003).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Petaling Jaya. and Blanchard. K. and Hyder. S. (1997).E. D. N. C. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application.  Gidron.T. and Syna Desevilya. H. E. Stress and Coronary Disease. (1999). A. Aggressive Driver. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. T. G. (2008). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. Journal of Applied Psychology.W.B. Nandy. European Journal of Public Health. MY: Sage.S.E... (Eds.  Grayson. 93-96). (Eds. and Carbonell Vaya. (2006). D. E. and Davidson. (2006). A. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. 33(6). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. 1233-1248. C. Y. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 19. A. E.C. and Mahbob. R. (2006). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fuller. 109-128.  Garg. 109-116.  Gidron.D.S. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 16(5).
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
M.M. D. H. Moscati.  Levenson.407-423. pp. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation.M. 38. N. Conner. 303-304. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. C. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and Nutter. (1973). Malay dominance and opposition politics. IV. 97. (1974).B. K. Journal of Social Psychology. 377-383.P. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. H.  Leech. New York: Academic. Mahwah.M. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. L.  Levenson. (2005). (Ed.G. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research..J. R. Jehle. Barrett.L. (2002). The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. 253-269).  LeShan. 397-401. Dutton. W. 177-196. H.K..  Levenson. (1983).C. and Stiller. 41. Janssen. and Morgan.  Lerner. In Lefcourt.  Lefcourt. D. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. New York: E. (1975). 93. H. (1976). (2001). H.  Lee. Lawton. H. Journal of Personality Assessment. Billittier.. 2nd Edition. (1989). G. 3. 479-490..  Lefcourt. H.  Lenior. 37. Cancer as a turning point. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. E. 262 .A.. R. A. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Accident Analysis and Prevention. British journal of Psychology. A. 659-662. G.M.V. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (2002). Applied Ergonomics.
Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. R. 11. February 2).P. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. March 26). H. In Lefcourt. L. (1981).  Lin. (1960). Accident Analysis and Prevention. H-F.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.  Lonero.S. I.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. W.  Lim. Huang. 10. and Yen. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. and Scodel. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. M-R. Liong Sik should convene an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Road Safety to develop an urgent strategy to ensure that the number of road deaths during this year’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Chinese New Year would not exceed the toll of last year. 36. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. Levenson. Hwang. J.M. 263 . 125-127. Psychological Reports. 7. (1999. (2007.com.  Lonczak. Differentiating among internality. F. 213-222.. The Star Online. powerful others and chance.my/news/story. (1997). H-D. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 2007 from http://www. 8-9  Liverant.A. Retrieved April 5. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. 15-63). Neighbors.htm.  Loo.. Retrieved May 14.. New York: Academic. H.  Levy.  Lindsey. and Donovan. (Ed. Wu. (2007). Accident Analysis and Prevention. S.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.limkitsiang. (1980). E. K. 39(3).  Looi. L-L.M. C. (Ed. 2007 from http://thestar. D.S. In Rothe. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. 536-545. H. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health.P.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. D.. (1979). (2004). 59-67.
Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. (1994... K. C.L. A. W. Accident Analysis & Prevention. behavior and cognition. M. Malaysia. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. Journal of Personality. 299313.  Martin. Vissers..M. L. 869-897. 62-67.P.  Maakip. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. J.A. C. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Australia. R. 31. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1994). A.W.  Marsh.M. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Annual mileage. 264 .  Luckner. and Balla. (1989). and Mooran. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Williams.W. age. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Quality & Quantity. Campbell. and Hershberger.L. Victoria NSW.L. H.L.R. 73-87. Journal of Rehabilitation. 593-597. (1986). (1997). D.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.K. 55(2). Psychological Bulletin. and Jessurun. (1995).  Macdonald.  Matthews. M. J. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. (1988). 103. S. 27(1). (1998). Watson. (1999). 18(4). (2000).L.  Massie. 233-252). In Dorn. of affect. and McDonald. 391-411. Balla.  Maruyama. and Wan. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. (2003). R.  Marsh. I. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.F. P. 185-217.. 68(5). R.R. 129. J. (Ed. G.F. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.A. and level of education. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. D.28. J. Report No.M.R.A.. Lourens. May).  Marcoulides.
 Mendel. Duncan.  Meichenbaum. and Brown. Retrieved April 5. Journal of Managerial Psychology. M. (1983)...  McMillan. Perspectives Psychiatriques.. Waylen. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures.R. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.  McRae.D. 173-181. Fort Worth TX: Holt.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. and Burkes. I. 23. and Neilly. 9. S. 649-663. L.. J. R. 45-52. Hampshire UK.  Mercer. D. D.. (1998). Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. J.  McKenna. I. 265 . 34(47). Beresford. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.P. G. F.  Md-Sidin. (1989). and Costa.malaysia-today. (2005. A. (1989). Personality in Adulthood. Sambasivan. Ergonomics. 37(6). Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.V. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Rinehar and Winston..P. (1977).  McKenna. P. 769-778.P. S. The University of Reading.  McKenna. New York: Plenum. (1974). F. (1986).htm  McConnell. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach.W.E. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. (2009). November 6). 2007 from http://www. Malaysia Today. 29. G. New York: Guilford. 71-77.E. M. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. Unconscious suicides. Ismail. (1990). (2007). F. [ in press]. Psychological Medicine. Risk Analysis. Gilbody. Understanding Human Behavior.
L. and Shapiro. In Helkama.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Finland..  Michon. P. Bulmas.  Monárrez-Espino. K.  Miles.J. from http://www. 341-353. (2003). 335-342. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. G. A. May). (2006). (Eds. E. (1989). 147-161. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. 38(6). Retrieved December 15. R. 61(3). and Blum. D. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. (2006). J..  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). Time intervals between accidents.M. Aggressive driving. (Eds. J. Retrieved May 23. and Johnson.A. 6(2).panducermat. Journal of Applied Psychology. V. 21(4). (1997). 75-85. 2006 from http://www. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. (1985). 33(3).pdf  Moller. and Niemi. l.aaafoundation.org. Kayumov.C.. and Laflamme. 195-211.org/pdf/agdr3study. Turku.  Mizel. Washington DC. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. 401406. L. J. A. H. Simulator performance. and Keskinen. (1949). New York: Plenum. Journal of Applied Psychology.php. Statistics.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. (1983. 44(2). First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. M.L. In Aggressive driving: three studies. microsleep episodes. Safety Science. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.my/en/street_smart_statistik. (154). M. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 266 . Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Mintz.E.  Mintz. E. 2007. Hasselberg. what should we do? In Evans. and Schwing. C. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.L.A. L. Michon. J. L.  Mikkonen. Nhan..
In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Petaling Jaya. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. 32-37. 72. 38(1).T. I.S.L. A. Transcultural Psychiatry. (1987). (1976). A. 42. Fifth Edition. Montag. and Maniam. E.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. R.  Novaco.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp.L.  Näätänen. 137-144. (1956). Visual Cognition. (1974). Boston: Pearson. 243-261.  Mousser. Journal of Affective Disorders. and Summala. Rajasingham-Senanayake. H. (Eds. 320-388). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. and Astur. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Moore. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.B. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.. A. and Comrey. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. (1999). 15(2). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 339-343. W. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Accident proneness and road accidents. In O’Donoghue . Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. Nandy. 125-132. R.  Näätänen. Amsterdam: North Holland. K. R.  Niméus. 267 . J. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.. (2007). 167-202). T. (1994).  Most.E. L. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). D.L. S. A. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. MY: Sage. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.  Neuman. (2007). (Eds. 8. A. 51-63. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors..  Morris. 164-174. P. and Gomez. and Summala H. Religioin 37. R.  Nandy. W. (2003). and Krasner. 6.
R. In Fuller.L (2002). AZ: Lawyers & Judges.L. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. p. Novaco. J. 43-76). Driver perception-response time. Driver suicides. December 9). Spanish Journal of Psychology.  Noy. (1998). 4. UK: Ashgate.  Ogden. and Hermida.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. P. M. I.  Olson.F (2001). In Dewar. J.. Tucson. R. Pentilla.W. and Z.S. (1996. (2000). K. and Olson. E. M. and Williams. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 171. (1996). 34. Temes. p. 40(10).38.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. 92-93. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. (2002). J. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. (Eds. R. R. Zwi (1997).W. Straits Times. B. A.. British Journal of Psychiatry. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 468-472. Aldershot.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. 654-656. and Lonnqvist. 237-252.B.  Ohberg. P.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.A. 201-215). P. 253-326). (1997).  O’Neill. N51. A. says operator. 2(5).R. (2001). 4(2). and Santos. R. Oxford UK: North Holland. February 8). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. F.  Ochando.W. (1997).  Novaco. Ergonomics. Injury Prevention. 1016-1024. Aggression on roadways.  O’Connell. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. (2007. 268 .. Human factors in modern traffic systems. A. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 445-460. In Baenninger. W. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. (Ed. Garner.
T. D. 3-13. (2005).S. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1988). and Lajunen (2005). B. driving violations and accident involvement.. R. (2004). Finland. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Traffic locus of control. 507-526. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies.G. and Kaistinen.  Parker. Manstead. 229-235. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Saleh.  Parsons.D. Lajunen. (2008). British Journal of Psychology. Hebl.. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. T. J. Personality and Individual Difference. 38(3).. and Synodinos. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Driving errors. 18.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.G. T. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. D. Ergonomics. Retrieved December 20. 37(1).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 42. 40. Ulrich. and Schneider. 479-486. (pp. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.T. and Grossman-Alexander.pdf -  Pai. O.  Papacostas. (1974). 269 .. 113-140. M. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Lajunen. 92.  Parkinson. S. H. (1998). 456-461. C.  Parker. N.S. 1036-1048. L. (Eds. 2007 from www. 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.. Anger on and off the road. and Huguenin. Tassinary.R.  Parker.. 533-545.M. Journal of Environmental Psychology. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). T.E. Accident Analysis & Prevention.  Parsons. J. Helsinki. R. 38(5). and Summala. Reason.R and Stradling.ictct. A.S. (1995). W.  Özkan.A. J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (2002). R. (2001). Özkan. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).. 125-134). C. 34. D. M.W. T.
. (2002). Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. A. Simple reaction time.C. Morristown NJ: General Learning. P. M.A. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. 8(1). Brazil. R. M. D. Peden.  Peltzer.  Perry. 35. S. K. T. Geneva. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. G. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Scurfield. M.  Phares. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 875-878..  Per. Campo Grande. 63.H. B. J. Superstition.R. Hyder.s  Pelz. Automotive Vehicle Safety. (1986). and Mathers (Eds. W..A. A. and Åkerstedt. Mohan. 1153. L. and Singh. D. 9-14 270 . 619-623. 2007 from http:www. Matto Grosso do Sul. D. Journal of Sleep Research. and Peters. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. London: Taylor & Francis. 147-154.  Philip. A. 68-79.B. 12(3). March 20-22. Perceptual and Motor Skills.A.  Peters.  Peden. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.J. (2002). and Baldwin. U. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Quera-Salva.) (2004).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. (2000)..ictct. World report on road traffic injury prevention. (1980).. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Taillard. E.and Schuman.. A. 201-204. Sleet. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers.R. and Al Haji. E. (1971). D. (2005). (1999). 91. 324. and Renner. and Hyder. 3. Jarawan. G. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Bioulac.J. British Medical Journal..M. (1976). Retrieved March 31. B. (2003). Locus of Control in Personality..  Pestonjee.
317-333.  Reason.J.S.I. 29(1). Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Porter. 3112). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32.  Reason. 673-678. and Campbell. 32(2). Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. Hopelessness.  Prociuk.D. J. (1993). 566-573. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. S.J. Human Error. 16(3). D. (1990). Plous. Ergonomics. and Anderle. P. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.  Radin Umar. (1996).J. (1989). S. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.. (1965). T. (2007). J. 334-343. internal-external locus of control and depression.  Rautela.  Preston. W. S. Disaster Prevention and Management.J. C. Baxter. and Harris. Cambridge University Press. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. 733-750. 49(4). T. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. 1315-1332. (2005).-G. (1976). E. C.N. S. 32(3).E. F. L. (1991). and Lussier. J. (1990). (2000). R. J. 78-80.  Ranney. A.. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Traffic Engineering and Control.S. (1994). and Pant. Stradling..  Proctor.. 299-300. S.H. Journal of Applied Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.  Reeder. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 369-374  Renner.. 271 . R. Breen. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. Manstead. 33. and Corlett. 20(4).A. K. 26. 284-288. Rider training. Chalmers. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. and Langley. S.
. (2002). (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. 453-460. (2007) Statistik2006.. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Tippetts. 2007 from http://202.G. S. W-R. and Nickel. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 37(3).190. Singapore: Elsevier.html  Robbins. Ergonomics. In Lim. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. P. E. P. 37(1). (1999). Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. Report to the General Assembly. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2003. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. In Rothengatter. R. 45(8). T. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology.  Richardson.  Rice.pdf  Risser.  Romano. 272 .G. (Ed). (2005). (2000).. Retrieved May 23.S. 485-489.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. cities.P. R. Journal of Safety Research. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. M.  Rimmö. 569-582.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Downe.D.L.Y. (2003). Journal of Safety Research. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Weinstein. (2000). P-A.  Romano. R. (Eds. 34(15). Stress and Health. K. 2007 from http://www.B. April).A.efpa. and Huguenin. (2004). S. A. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Tippetts. and Solomon. Retrieved December 11. Accident Analysis & Prevention. E.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.R. S. and Voas. and Voas. S. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Anger. R. Organizational Behavior. R. R.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Retting. H.64. 1-7.  Robbins.  Risser.
J. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. J. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. T. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (2007). (Ed. (pp. (1975). In Barjonet.B. (2006). and Bhopal. 5. 84-115. 80.(Ed.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.  Rothengatter. 428-435  Rothe. Rosenbloom. 56-67. 595-600). The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 3-12). 45. Capital & Class. (1998). M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2005). (1966). Psychological Monographs. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 43(1).B.  Rothengatter. whole issue. 43(3). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.  Rotter.P. In Rothe.  Rothengatter. T. T. 308-331. G.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.  Rowley. topics and methods. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. T. G. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. and Shahar. (2001) Objectives.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.  Rotter. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 88. 214-220). 249-258. and Bhopal. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. (2005). C. American Psychologist.B. 10.B. (2002). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (1990).P. P-E. (Ed. 273 .  Rothengatter. (Ed.  Rowley. T. In Underwood. J. 489-493. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. C. M. A. J. J. Boston: Kluwer. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. (2002).  Rotter.
(2005. Bukit Aman.  Saad. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). F.gov.  Salminen. 33-36. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. occupational.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Retrieved May 22.A2.malaysia-today. Kuala Lumpur. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Santos (Eds. (2005). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. (1997). and Heiskanen.). 2003 from http://www. Retrieved December 11. 23-42). Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). p. September 29). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. S. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Kuala Lumpur. Bukit Aman. B. Thrills. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. 2007 from http://www. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Bukit Aman. (2006.  Salminen. R. IBU Pejabat Polis. Road Safety – Back to the Future. 29(1). September 26).  Sadiq.  Sabey.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). sports and home accidents.htm 274 . M.rmp. Correlations between traffic.my. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. IBU Pejabat Polis. IBU Pejabat Polis. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. The Star. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). 37(2). Kuala Lumpur. In Fuller. 373-376. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].A. (2002). S. (1999). IBU Pejabat Polis.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. Bukit Aman. J.
The research process: of big pictures. Healy. conscientiousness. C. 314-318.F. 34. (2004). M. 38. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. (1966). Sagberg. In Honjo. 179-188. Applied Economics..I.K. In Healy. (2006). Jr. and Young. 117-147).  Schwebel. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. 673-687. (1995). J. C. C. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. B. and Rizzo. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Panter.E. K.T.. Morf.  Scuffham.A. L.C.A. (2008. I.. K. Nagoya: Japan. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. M. Asian Survey.F.. F. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. A. P.F.  Scuffham. P. M. v. Ericsson. (2000).). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Langley (2002). and sensation seeking. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. Personal correspondence. and Panter. 275 . Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. and Sætermo. Fosser.C. 3-16). D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 29(3). A. and Schade. 6(9). Traffic Engineering + Control.  Schneider..T. C.  Schlag. Severson. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. November 15). Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. 484-491. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. J.  Sansone.L. S. and the social psychological road in between. little details.C. In Sansone. Morf. and Bourne. 35. K.E. (Ed. 293302  Salih. 801-810.A. (1997). (Eds. 41. (1981). (2003).  Sendut.. V. Ball. Jr. A. L. and Bourne. 6. Regional Development Series. H.  Sambasivan..
 Sekaran. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 15(3). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. C. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. (2004). Dewar.T.J. (2000). and Kanekar. G. P.L.P.. American Journal of Psychiatry. D. E. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. 46(15). D. 397-404. 119(3). C. A. and Warshaw. Hartwick.  Selzer. R. Journal of Counseling and Development. Hult..M.  Shinar.E. and Roskova. Ketchen. Journal of Consumer Research. 3-7. 1549-1565. (1998). Boston: Kluwer. K.  Shook. U.M and Kacmar. 276 . (1988). (2007). B. S. suicide and unconscious motivation. H. 1. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. Automobile accidents. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. 25.E. Summala. 361-365. J.  Siegel. (1956). Ergonomics.  Sharma. P-E. In Barjonet. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. 66. (2003). (Ed.L. 51(1). B. 180-205). Fourth Edition.  Siegriest. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. and Payne.  Sheppard. D. M..  Sharkin. 237-240. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. (1962). New York: John Wiley & Sons.R. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. (1988).. S..  Shinar.H. L. (2003).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Strategic Management Journal. and Zakowska. 137-160.S. J. New York: McGraw Hill.  Shapiro. M. 325-343. (2001).
386-397.D. (1995). Jr. P. (2007). Retrieved December 25. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. Issues in Science and Technology. Winter). A. Corrigan. (Ed. and Poirier. In Stanton. Crowson. S. Cognitive Therapy and Research. (2007). J.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. C. Sinha.pdf  Spielberger.J. and Watson. E. 237-258. (2001. R. M.. Lichtenstein. P.A.. expression and control of anger. and Guest. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. B.). Ergonomics. American Psychologist.K. 2007 from http://www. B. S. (Ed.  Stanton.G.J. Kurylo. FL: Taylor & Francis. J. 2007 from http://findarticles. Journal of Risk and Insurance. C. 477-492. Auto safety and human adaptation. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Retrieved December 1. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. August). London: Arnold. Editorial.  Slinn.A. D.sirc.R. H. (2004). International Journal of Stress Management. and Frank. Measuring the experience. B.C. Boca Raton. Houston.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder.C. 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. N. B. 277 . (1977). Fishchoff.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. 47(8)...  Slovic. and Coombs. 1151-1158. In Kassinove.  Spielberger. (1998).org/publik/driving. (1997).A. Stress.  Smiley. Product design with people in mind. P. Reheiser. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. M. B.. and Sydeman. 1029-1030. 1-18).. N. Oxford UK.. 44. 49-68). C. 14(4). Matthews. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.  Stanton. 50(8). 21(4)..K.D. N. (1992).
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 63. T. (2001). M. New York: Guilford. M. N. E. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. 681-688. Maggio. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.R. (1993).E. and stress.C. Stokols. Palamara. (1988). (2003). Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. 467-480. Traffic congestion. 279-300). 529-544. R. R. R.. 247-254. N. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. Type A Behavior.W. (1996). 43(9). 1359-1370.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. Journal of Applied Psychology. Trabasso. Bilgic.  Stevenson. M. Morrison. J. Journal of Psychology. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. The Methodology of Theory Building. In Lewis. R.. (Ed. 949-964. UK: Edward Elgar. J. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. A. D. 278 . (2001). 2(4). R. N.  Steiner.  Sümer.  Stewart. M. 44(3). N.L. and Liwag. T. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. (2005). Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates..  Stough. Traffic Injury Prevention. 35. and Jin. (2005). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. 178-182. J.E. In Stough. (2000). H. (1978).. 37(4). Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.M. 139(6).R. (Eds.  Stein. and Havland. Ergonomics. Novaco.A. D.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. G. Stanton.  Storey. Cheltenham. and Campbell. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. and Ryan. N..  Subramaniam. N. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Sümer.  Sümer. P. and Pinto..A.  Stokols. M. and Erol.
and Tantriratna.K. and Gunes. H.  Sümer. H. 18(4).  Summala. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills.. S. S. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. (Eds. (1980). (1996). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 31. 331-342. Ergonomics. and de Bruin. H. Berument. (1988). T. 383-394). A. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. 41-52).  Summala. In In Rothengatter.. 38. Nieminen. and Lajunen... and Punto. (1986).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2005). R. Accident risk and driver behaviour. Özkan. P. Koonchote. T. and Näätänen. 21. H.  Summala. R. Human Factors. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. Nguntra. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. H. (2006). W. H. (2005). and Merisalo. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. 193-199.  Summala. (Eds. T. 703-711. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. A. (Ed.  Swaddiwudhipong. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. H. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Mahasakpan. (1996). Sümer. 103-117. T. (Report 11). Helsinki.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. Safety Science. Journal of Traumatic Stress... N.. (1988). vehicles. and Carbonell Vaya E. 442-451. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Summala. G. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . H. 38(3).  Summala. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 82-92). (1997).N. 491-506. (1994). In Underwood.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Personal resources. H. N. M. 22(1-3). In Rothengatter. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. Karanci.  Summala. P.
. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. and Huba.. S.M. The interaction of attention and emotion. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  Tanaka. Y.E.S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 52(6). International Review of Applied Psychology. (2001).  Tanaka. and Kitamura. 42. (2001).road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Sakamoto. 353-369. Journal of Social Psychology.  Theeuwes. and Kitamura. B. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. 33(2). S. 37-44. 241-257. Fujihara. Fujihara. P-E. New York: Simon & Schuster. J. Journal of Clinical Psychology.  Theodorson. S.. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. (1998). (1996). T. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 18(4).233-239. 25(1). Ono. and Layde.R.  Tanaka. 138(5). (1969). C.J... C. E. Ono. (Ed. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. G. N. G. E. E. (eds.C. 609-615.R. 167-172. (1989)..  Thompson. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. (1985). P. and Theodorson. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. D.M. and Yarnold. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation..  Tavris. and Papacostas. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. In Grimm. 34. Sakamoto.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. L. Neural Networks.  Tavris. T.A. A. Boston: Kluwer. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. The effects of road design on driving. (1985). A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. J. G.G. Y. In Barjonet. P.S. 581-590. Kuhn. 280 .  Synodinos. S.  Taylor. and Fragopanagos (2005). (2000). J.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 241-263).
Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. and Milton. 385-424. Personality and Individual Differences.  Ulleberg. and response to a traffic safety campaign. B.  Tiliman.M. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. L. A. W. 11-22. Chapman. Anger while driving.  Tversky. 185.  Tversky. (1999). G. Enns. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. 207-332. 321-333. D. 281 . 1124-1130. H. (1973).A and Hobbs. G.  Trimpop. Cognitive Psychology. 279-297. Science. Volume 3: Attention. and Kahneman. R. and Everatt. 7. (1993). Personality predictors of driving accidents.W. The accident prone automobile driver. 55-68. D. J. (1985). (Eds. 2. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. (1974).  Trick. (1996). Injury Control and Safety Promotion. 10(3).  Underwood. American Journal of Psychiatry. (2003). Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty.  Turner. 445-448. (1997). Mills. J. C. and Kirkcaldy. (2004). D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability.  Underwood. J. 147-152...F. In Neumann. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology. G. A. (2001). R. and Kahneman.T. Wright and Crundall. 123-130. accident involvement. 5(5). O. Relationship to risk-taking preferences.E. C. (1949). and Vavrik. 23(1).  Underwood. P. 32(3). Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. 106(5). Personality subtypes of young drivers.. G. 5. Judgment under uncertainty. A. P. London: Academic. Journal of Counseling Psychology. J. 4(4). and Sanders. and McClure.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. Thurman.
On-line driver workload estimation. Bergerson. 24-29. M. W. (Eds. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst.F.. 26. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. R. 210-222.D. D. A. (2005). (1999). Driver selection and improvement in Germany. 9(2). Smart. 181-190). The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.J. Utzelmann.ictct.pdf  Vallières. 444-458. 913-921. 42. T.  Verwey. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Brazil. Meijman. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Retrieved September 1. March 20-22. 43(2).  Velting.. (2004). 39.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. (2000). (1998). A. R. A. Harris. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Ergonomics.” Recovery. Cockfield. S..) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.A. T.D.A. É. “Accident prone. J. and Vallerand. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. 2007 from http:www..ictct. H. S. In Rothengatter.M. 2007 from www. 282 . W. Personality and Individual Differences.. Italy. Harrison. Matto Grosso do Sul. (1999). Retrieved December 5.  Vasconcellos. In Underwood.. and McIntyre. Ergonomics. J.. (Ed. and Rothengatter. 336-345.F. (2001).org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. T. G.  Vaa. (2005).  Vavrik. and Huguenin. J. E. Campo Grande. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Sanson.B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2007). Caserta. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
B. 421-444. W. and Little.backwoodshome. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. and Zaidel.F. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. P.theaa. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. (1998). (2001). A.P.J. R.com/articles/waterman37. M. M. Raghunathan. N.T. 427-433. Verwey. B. 1-8). Amsterdam: Elsevier.P.  Wállen Warner. P.  Waller. (2006). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Carbonell Vaya E. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. F. 123-142.. 2008 from http://www. 5(4).. 33. 28.A... P. (Eds.. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. D. and Mallinckrodt (2003).  Watson. (1997).com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Heppner. L. Wellington. 50(4). An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Transportation and society. 438-447. (2002). M. Retrieved November 2. 9. A. Shope. and Young. Retrieved December 15. January 21).H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.A. Personality and Individual Differences. Backwoods Home Magazine. (2001). Elliot. H.  Waller.M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.S. J. (2009. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 283 .E. T.  Walker. and Åberg. New Zealand. 117128. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).F. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.  Waterman. In Rothengatter. Stanton. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. and McKenna. T. (2000). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. 2007 from http://www.R.html. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.  Waylen.pdf  Wei.
E. K. 34. M.J. G. University of Waterloo Press. Weissman. (pp. In Yager.S. 135-154). G. G. G. 31. G. 1116-1121. In Halsey. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.  Wilde. J. (1973). S. Elander. (1961). Dunaway. Ergonomics. 1149-1152. Guiling.S.. G. S. Wiliams. R. Advances in Paediatrics. G. 2. 84. Childhood accidents.W.J. Risk Analysis. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Accident Prevention.M..J.. 195.).. G. Preventions of accidents in childhood.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. 441-468.N. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.  Wheatley. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P.J. Fox. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.S. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .S.  Wilde. D.  West. 450-455. M. 15(11/12). and French.  Wells. (ed.M (1956). Ceminsky. (1993). On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. (1988). 130(4). Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. (2002). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. (2007). and Anderson. 209-225. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. Mild social deviance. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.  Wheatley. 271278. American Journal of Psychiatry. Snow. 207-219. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. Hallberg.  Wilde. (Ed.  Wilde.  Wells-Parker.S. M. (2002). (2005). G. (1982).. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health..J.J..  Wilde.  Wilde. J. Target Risk. G. (1994). Toronto: PDE Publications. 324. and Klerman.L. (1984). 8.S. British Journal of Psychology. B.
N.K..ictct. 34(5). Space and Culture. and Hartman. D. J.Workshop. S.R.J. M.. T. T. (2008). Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. V.F. Matto Grosso do Sul. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Psychological Assessment. and Boyd. Campo Grande. (Ed.E. Journal of Safety Research. Countries and Their Cultures. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. 110-131. 285 . 527-531..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. (1996). A. Flyte and Garner. M. Retrieved March 31.  Williamson.  Woodcock.  Wood. and Well. S. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. and Poythress. 6(2). T.  Williams. 303346. A. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues.Y. 1. J. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.. Lenard.S. (2001).) Contemporary Ergonomics.G. 55(175). New York: Taylor & Francis. 398-403. (2004). 26(6). N. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Wood. In Hanson.  Wilson. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. International Social Science Journal. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.  Williams. 31.B. (2000).G.C.  Williams. Cascardi. J.I.A. Brazil. 807-811. 8.  Williams. Welsh. A.. E. Gavin. 2007 from http:www. and Shabanova. Boyd. (1999). 557-567. Responsibility of drivers. by age and gender.F. March 20-22.  Williamson. Applied Ergonomics. Mastering the World of Psychology.. (2003). M. A. (1994). L. Boston: Pearson. 99-109. (2003). (2003).
A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.  Zhang.A. 1314-1330. 286 . Ergonomics.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention.  Zikovitz. 42(5). (2005). Ergonomics. S. 46-58. M. (2000). D. X. Ergonomics. D.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Geneva. (Ed. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. and Stanton. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 43(9). Islam. N. 50(1). Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. (2005). 740-746.  Yergil. 473-485. and Chaffin. Report of an Advisory Group.S. theatre and tourism. 118.C. In Underwood. and Harris. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Country reports. D. (1999).R. 487-503). Technical Report Series No. G.  Yaapar. 33(3). Asian Journal of Social Science. . (2007). Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. L. Head tilt during driving.
or benefits. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . Immediately after releasing the pressure. ABS ensures that. allowing the wheel to turn. the brake line pressure is relates. (see also. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages.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. differential accident involvement). As a result. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. 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. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. presumably because of personality factors. on most surface types.
as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. (see also. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. p. (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. (see also. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. 288 . BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. distal variable. 25). and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. (see also. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. The central idea is that. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. McKenna of the University of Reading. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. including driver behaviour. In the present research. risk homeostasis theory. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. road and traffic conditions. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. proximal variable. 2004. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. it refers to a combination of circumstances. 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. characteristics of road users. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type.Noy. Also referred to as risk compensation. rather than a theory. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. where possible. task capability theory) . the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. time of week and.
but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. In traffic psychology. aptitudes. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. 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. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. values. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. self-concept. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. not as a unidimensional. 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. 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). Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. ability. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. motivation.S. intelligence. Department of Transportation. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. selfefficacy and self-esteem. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). (see also. interests. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. William Haddon Jr. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. in-crash. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. 289 .. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. (see also. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash.
motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. mobile construction equipment or platforms. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. Included in this term are walking.S. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. That is. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. and buses. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Private speech: see self-talk. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. 333-334). Wilde. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. motorcycles. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. the ego and the superego. motor vehicles included automobiles. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. bicycling. p. motorised bicycles. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. For the purposes of the present research. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. the individual differences approach. conversely. 1985. 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. 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”. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. trucks (lorries). individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. For the purposes of the present research. including life goals” (Chaplin. most usually on roads. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour.
signage. Within the context of this research. but only 291 . 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. draining system. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. p. (see also. bridges. at both conscious and unconscious levels. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. archways and footpaths. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. behavioural adaptation. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. overpasses. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. parking spaces. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. including the network.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. tunnels. target risk. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. 1996. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Road safety engineering: “a process.” (Ogden. stopping places. 35).
Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. (see also. remains constant at the target level. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. theory of reasoned action. On dry roads. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. behaviour control) (see also. 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. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour).when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. According to RHT proponents. 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. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). According to Wilde (1994). (see also. which are the best predictors of behaviour. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar.
it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. management science and economics. behavioural adaptation. from its outset. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. (see also. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. road engineering. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. that share the same road infrastructure. coordinating. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. motorised and non-motorised. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. convenience and economy. time. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology.Traffic management: planning. comfort. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. In the present research. community planning. ergonomics. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
2000). Papacostas & Synodinos. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. San Antonio. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT.wpspublish.eng. Beck & Steer.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.html 295 . Buss & Warren.S. C.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Brace & Company). Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.com/cgibin/MsmGo.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. 19500 Bulverde Road. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.hawaii. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.edu/~csp/csp. CA 90025 USA http://portal. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 1993). TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess.
296 . Snyder.ukans. Kansas 66045 USA www.edu/hope. Houston.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.R.psych. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Snyder. C. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. Crowson.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
__________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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 .. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. Most of the time when you travel. please answer the following questions: 2.. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.what manufacturer & model (e. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. _________. We are not asking for your name. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.g.g. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. _________. 1.
some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. all the time ___ yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. 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 . When you want to use a motorcycle.8. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. most of the time ___ no 11. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.
what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months.12. 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. but no injuries? If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.