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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
demographic (age. some personality constructs. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. and destination-activity orientation. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. 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. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. freeway urgency. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. respectively). The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). 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. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. on average. where. seven fatalities are recorded each day. vii . personality traits. 302 and 252. However. and that driver behaviours. hopelessness. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined.
consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. As reported in previous studies. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. As hypothesised. as well. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. viii . locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. 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. The role of the proximal variable. Among distal variables. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Results indicated that. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures.
2.4 1.5 220.127.116.11.3.3 ix .2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.4 Risk Theories 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 2.4. Theories and Models 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 18.104.22.168 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 1.1 Concepts.22.214.171.124.2.2.1 Accident Proneness 2.3.1 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 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 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1 1.2.
2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2 Gender 2.3.4 126.96.36.199.2 Demographic Variables: Age.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 188.8.131.52 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.3.1 3.5.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 184.108.40.206.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 220.127.116.11.4.3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.1 Age 2.6.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 18.104.22.168.1 Locus of Control 2.1.3 Locus of Control 3.5 2.2 Process Models 22.214.171.124 Ethnicity 2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 126.96.36.199.4.3 Psychological Variables 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5.2 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Experience 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.3.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.1 Statistical Models 2.5.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.4 Hopelessness 3.6 184.108.40.206.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 220.127.116.11 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 126.96.36.199.2.1.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.5.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .1 Demographic Variables 188.8.131.52 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 184.108.40.206.
5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7 220.127.116.11.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.6 3.5.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 18.104.22.168.4 Study 2 22.214.171.124 Logistic Regression Analysis 126.96.36.199 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.1 Study 1A 188.8.131.52 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.1 The Sample 3.2 Study 1B 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 184.108.40.206.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 220.127.116.11.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .18.104.22.168.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.8 Crash Occurrence 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.5.4 3.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.2 Research Instruments 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 188.8.131.52.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.3 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.2.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 184.108.40.206.2.2 Degree of freedom (df) 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168 Study 1C 3.
6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 22.214.171.124.1. Gender and Ethnicity 4.12.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 126.96.36.199.6.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 188.8.131.52.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 184.108.40.206.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.1 Results of Study 1 220.127.116.11 Results of Study 2 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.5.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2.3 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.4 4.6.5 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 xii .6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1 Age.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 188.8.131.52 Validity Test Results 4.
2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.7.5 5.5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.5.4.1 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 184.108.40.206 Study 2 220.127.116.11 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.9.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 18.104.22.168 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.3.6 xiii . Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 22.214.171.124 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.5.4 126.96.36.199.5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.6.2 Goodness of Fit 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 188.8.131.52 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.8.8 4.9.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.1 Study 1C 4.7 4.3.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.7.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.
4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .5.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 184.108.40.206 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 220.127.116.11 Theory vs.7 18.104.22.168.3 Driver Selection.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Education 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 22.214.171.124 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.
2 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.11 xv .1 4.10 4.2 4.3 3.3 3.5 4.5 4. Table Page 2. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.1 3.9 4.LIST OF TABLES No.3 114 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.1 2.4 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.7 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.6 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.
26 138 139 144 145 4.28 4.21 135 4.13 4.24 137 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.27 4.23 136 4.19 133 4.20 134 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.12 4.25 138 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.17 129 4.16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.22 136 4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.
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 4.33 4.2 5.5 209 225 5.1 199 206 207 5.35 4.37 4.39 4.32 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.6 xvii .31 4.3 5.4 208 5.36 4.4.41 175 5.34 4.30 4.
8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.7 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.LIST OF FIGURES No.2 147 148 4.6 2. 2. 1996. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.4 2.3 4.4 4.3 3.1 2. Hatakka.2 2.4 148 xviii . 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.2 3. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 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 4.3 2.9 59 2.
9 4.8 4.10 4.13 xix .11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.5 4.7 4.12 4.4.6 4.
I got back to work on them. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. He was driving. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. finally. . He was very popular with other students. and his mental state. He didn’t want to go. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I’m pretty happy with it. things were not going well. she was riding pillion. I’m a fairly big guy. How important these factors are. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. they are prone to other types of error as well. and this thesis is the result. programme. or wouldn’t. but she’d nagged him. I told her not to worry. they cut across a lane too quickly. I feel like it a bit right now. is a matter of debate … Obviously. The behaviour of the traveller. lane deviation and all the rest. I don’t cry much any more. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. they were focused on the errand. But sometimes. I was confused by the results I was getting. My research design needed a serious re-working. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. only a trimester or two earlier.PREFACE Accidents occur. to the weary traveler. he’d taken the same course as she. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. They were hurrying. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. She started crying and couldn’t stop. xx . I hope it makes a contribution. Her hands and voice quivered. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. they were frustrated and angry with each other. I didn’t recognise her at first. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. externally-focused frustration. She had been badly injured. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I knew the fellow. just every so often. She had needed to go on an errand. I like to watch boxing. But. at least not with real tears. And they crashed.D. LISREL couldn’t. I wanted to throw in the towel. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events.
kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2002. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Enns. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. cognitive (Vaa. policy-makers. This is particularly salient in developing countries.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Iwasaki.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Verwey. Graham. 11). 2004). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. Trick. 2002). anticipation. 2004). 1996. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Olson. judgement. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Scurfield. Sabey (1999). Peters & Peters. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. including the 1 . Stanton & Pinto.g.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. Green. Consistently over the years.. road. such as Malaysia. state of mind and physical well-being. commented that. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. 2006. “human factors play a major role in road accidents.g. 2004) have been studied extensively. 2007. perceptual (Hong. 2001. 2000. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Theeuwes. 1999). 2007. 2000). Mills & Vavrik. Sleet. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2000). 2001). Furuichi & Kadoma. for instance. Mohan & Hyder.. Ogden. Even after decades of study. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p.
including the study of a large number of variables. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.roadway. McKenna. 21). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. A total of 10.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2002. 2003). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. “the literature on personality has a long history. 2007). locus of control. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 1989). 1983). 2004. However. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 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 was a total of 341. 2 .732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 2005).332 drivers and 15. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The chapter 1. p. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. According to Dewar (2002b). 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.351.112).790.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.
2001. Lajunen & Summala. Severson. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Hwang. Stewart. 2000). Sumala & Zakowska. often with widely varying results (Dewar. locus of control (Arthur. 2002. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 1993. Draskóczy. Özkan. 1997). Huang. 1997). Rimmö. Hence. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 2005. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Barrett & Alexander. Gidron. Dewar. Gal & Syna Desevilya. 1999. Verwey. 2006. Historically. Lin. 2003). Wells-Parker et al. Ulleberg. Wells. 1997. 2001. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Blasco. West & French. 2003. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 1991. Loo. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Ball & Rizzon. 2002. Parada & Cortes. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 3). 2004. Gonzalez. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 2002. 1994. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 2002) and many others. 2004. Elander. 1997). Vasconcellos. 2005). 2000.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2006. Renner & Anderle. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 3 . 1979. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Cohn. 2002b. 2007). ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Shinar. 2001). Barjonet & Tortosa. Schwebel. 2004). 1997). traffic psychology studies have tended to focus categorically on two main areas of interest: (a) an examination of the wide variety of individual differences in task performance among people sharing the same system. Wu & Yen. aggression (Parkinson. 2005.
has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i..e. Parker. 2004). road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 1997. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. 1997). 1996. externally-focused frustration..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 particular. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.e. Hampson & Morris. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 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. Speeding. The relationship between functional models which predict dynamic road user behaviour and the availability of broader integrative theory in traffic psychology is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this thesis.Increasingly. in turn. 2005). 1. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. for instance. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. vehicle. however. Sümer (2003). What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. Noy (1997). A frequent criticism. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.
(d) driver hopelessness. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. (b) driving experience. 9). 1. gender and ethnicity. 5 . injuries and deaths.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 2005. “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. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 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. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. (c) driver locus of control. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. but also on their interactions. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. situated as proximal variables. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. p. (e) driver aggression. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. By focusing on not only demographic. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables.
the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. 6 . the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Rothengatter. 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. 2000). It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. in the applied sciences. 2005. 1997. the plethora of theories available. road safety measures and public policy. There is a growing sentiment that. 1974). 2004. Moreover. Laapotti. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 2001. 2004. 1997). the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Utzelmann. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. 1993). 94). an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. “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. Hatakka. Näätänen & Summala. 2004). Some authors have suggested that. p. Katila & Peräaho.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. 2001). Radin Umar. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.g. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. attitude theory. human motivation. 1. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. This broader perspective. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.. It is useful. in turn. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. Che Ali. 2001).Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. To the author’s knowledge. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. In doing so. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. 7 .g. 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.. which deals with methodology. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.
in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. Study 2 and Study 3. 2003). 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. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. gender. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. aggression. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. Black. externally-focused frustration. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. Babin. In Study 1. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. 2006. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. hopelessness. the effects of selected demographic (age. driving experience. 711). This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. second. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. variables (Sekaran. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. In each successive study. Anderson & Tatham. p. each entailing data collection from a different sample. The final result. In this case. cultural background).however. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. at the conclusion of Study 1C. or outcome. 1B and 1C). driving (experience. first.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.are most important in predicting. 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. a third model was constructed. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. over the course of 30. 1. 9 . This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. in fact.to 45-minute trips. 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. verbally administered psychometric instruments. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. In Study 3. In Study 2. After the initial model-building had been completed. Again. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.
along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 1990). Katila & Laapotti. However. Stradling. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. 2002. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Manstead. Finally. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Boyce & Geller. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. The relationship between the manner 10 . Baxter & Campbell. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. at least to a certain extent. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. Keskinen. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. 1997). Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. The present research. as well. while recognising the distinction. Are the attitudes. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
2007). “laid-back” and “considerate”. 2007).1. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. “impatient”. “friendly”. Over 6. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 2005).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. In newspaper reports. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. there were 341. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2007). in order of frequency. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. in aggregate. “bullies” and “selfish”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. 2005). 1989). economic expansion. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. to a rapid increase 12 . “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. 2003). 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 succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. inconsiderate and aggressive. Recently. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. These are thought to have contributed. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. 2005). the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “patient”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. 2006). industrialisation and motorisation.1 2. “reckless”. “peaceful”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. they indicated “angry”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2007). Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.
1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. 2007). This suggests that studies.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.286 9. 2005).2).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. Table 2. Table 2.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 2003. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Radin Umar.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.395 2006 6. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.040 2004 6.304 in 1994 to 6.741 38. 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. 2005).091 37.415 52. Abdul Rahman. from 189.264 2006 341.7111 2003 298.200 9.20 deaths per 10.417 47.425 2003 6.552 37.000 vehicles in 2006. 2005).98 deaths per 10. Mohd Zulkiflee.012 19. & Wong.287 in 2006.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. Studies 13 . Generally.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.425 5. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.885 35.287 9.653 2004 326. in Malaysia. In Malaysia.645 54.891 8.000 vehicles (Law. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Subramaniam & Law.228 9.236 49.815 2005 328.218 2005 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.
81 3.67 206 0.08 541 2.65 2.81 2.94 1.94 625 3.07 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.10 3.025 9.81 1. 2005).329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.64 135 0.086 9. 2001). or about 2.48 323 1.05 2. 2006).31 3.49 450 2.37 337 1.47 280 1.22 150 0.820 13.309 10.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.08 585 2.80 203 0. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.92 1.921 100 20.953 17.967 100 19.05 2.97 1. Palamara.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.29 708 3.16 90 0.45 30 0.15 43 0.034 4.82 1.469 15.180 10.84 1.85 2.947 10.63 160 0.06 608 3.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.26 463 2.76 22.94 2.07 2.05 1.61 99 0.77 3. 2002.551 12.023 5.67 billion. 2003).91 984 4.038 13.50 979 4.620 7. 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.48 105 0. and particularly among younger drivers.41 302 1.315 17. 2001. or an average of RM4.08 2.90 159 0.54 708 3.049 15.56 3.416 6.378 11.389 6.15 572 2.27 458 2.593 11.005 15.448 17.85 147 0.997 14.23 2.205 11.178 15.65 121 0.418 100 19. It has been reported that.431 7.29 2.68 128 0.72 554 2.68 3.15 3.216 10.7 billion. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. in 1999 alone.92 2.08 1.40 1. Morrison & Ryan.709 8. Table 2.21 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem. 14 .11 2.71 543 2.99 164 0.803 9. general insurers paid RM1.341 12.110 10.4 billion to RM5.
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. if people want to die? (Lim. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. traffic congestion. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. or the pain of the maimed. What else can we do. 2005). 1999). physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. lane definition. Some seven years later. Criticisms of road configuration. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. (Bernama. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. Politicians and government policy-makers have also struggled with the rising sense of public dissatisfaction over persistently high rates of traffic fatalities and with frustration in trying to find solutions to the problem. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 2006). Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. 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. The economic consequences can be estimated.Yet. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. which is actually a nightmare. In 1999. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge.
is often mentioned as a factor. 2005). for instance. how they think.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. Who they are. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. newspaper columnists. though.(Abdul Rahman et al. In 2006. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. In a recent newspaper interview. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. as compared with 1. 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 . They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. given greater risks of accident. 2007). Researchers. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature. 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. 2007). approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. Generally.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 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. 2006). 2001. 2005). 1997). unlike in other countries.
(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. conspicuity and excessive speeding. This is. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. Bartle & Truman. Law et al. In none of the studies of the MSP. Law. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. In the same study. 1996). Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. 2. Mohd Nasir. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. rather than personality factors. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. injuries and fatalities. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. For instance. In a separate study. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Chalmers & Langley. 2007). Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Ward. Ahmad Hariza. Radin Umar. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. respectively. Musa. perhaps. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. 17 .1. however.
road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 110). This. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. He argued that. According to Williamson. they are accident prone. 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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. resulted in a myriad of problems. 1996). however. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 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. 121-122). he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 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.122). generalising to all driving environments and situations. has linked peninsular communities. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. The very monotony of the road surface. 18 . motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly.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. since 1994.
the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. 1991). Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 1993). Åberg. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. West and French. 784). Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. particularly. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. bad road conditions. 62). by far. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 1993.2. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. Among engineering factors. Among human factors.2. personality characteristics (Elander. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. levels of driving experience and. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Christ.2 2. etc. This has included the examination of age and gender. 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.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. experiential. but rather 19 . driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).
641). Haddon (1963). weak. 1997. 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. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 2002. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. prior accident experience (Lin et al. Further. 2004) and other contextual variables. 1994). psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. to a large degree. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 2005).by the behaviour of drivers. Ranney. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. Lajunen & Summala. 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. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. 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. However. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 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. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 377). unclear. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 2004). The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. or at least predict. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics.
321). 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. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 482). and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2003).2. 2. 2002. Underwood & Milton. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.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. information processing. 1993). Nevertheless. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 2003). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. 1961. Preston & Harris. 1997a). 1996. Wagenaar & van Koppen. there has been an interest in driver personality. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 21 . 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 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. the lack of replication of many studies. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg.2. 2005).2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.
” (p. but that complex traffic 22 . 2002). ergonomics. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. According to Rothengatter (2001). in a Spanish survey. anthropology and sociology. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. medicine. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. Indeed. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. psychology. 3).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. 4). Ochando. 2. To wit. transportation planning. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. 246).2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset.654-655. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.) 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.2. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. or peculiar to. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. traffic and transportation. eoncompassing engineering.2. or the psychological support for intervention. in the field of traffic.
there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. In a recent special edition. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 24). 2007. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. 2004. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. 1158). over the past ten years. In the broadest sense. 1995. Peden & Hyder. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 2000). and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. the road environment comprises the vehicle. 1997. surrounding environments and 23 . the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. as well. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. Stanton (2007) noted that. the road infrastructure and other road users. the study of cognitive processes. Wilson. in particular. Odero. 2002). Garner and Zwi. 2003. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. Ergonomics has made a contribution. Hyder & Peden. Johnston. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and.
Jannssen. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. Neerincx & Schriebers. particularly the notions of mental load. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2006. though. 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. 2001).1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. “This school of though. road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 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.3 2. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 2.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . Stanton & Young. 1997. Noy. 2004). Walker. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. predict and modify road user behaviour. 26). Increasingly. 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. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics.3. error and cognitive modelling.
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 2005.. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 1995). each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations.3. in traffic psychology. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. A-18) Often. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. Healy. Reasons for this are likely several. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 2. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. p. 2005). or both. In traffic psychology. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. 1985). Ericsson & Bourne Jr. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. 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. 1969). Concepts can be linked together to form a theory.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. or accident-causing behaviours. To a degree. 2000. many models have been proposed. p. whether theories should explain everyday driving. often in mathematical form. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. but for the purposes of this thesis. this may be due to 25 . On the other hand.
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.the imprecise definition of concepts. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. given the complexity of human behaviour. Notwithstanding these difficulties. risk adaptation theories. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal.. attitudes. 189). and emotional determinants. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. social. 26 . feel in control. etc.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. 2. minimise delay and driving time. 2002). enjoy driving. 2004. perceptions.3. Instead. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. avoid obstacles. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. and most of the time is not especially influential. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. 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. Rothengatter. 2005). motives and personalities (Robbins. For over ninety years. cognitive.
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). 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. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. 1980) and other safety outcomes.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). McRae &Costa. conscientiousness. anxiety and driving anger. 1979). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. aged 16 to 29 years. However. for instance. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. neuroticism. According to Rothengatter (2002). thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1990). 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. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. aggression. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. 2000). extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. 1995. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. but not occupational accidents. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. irresponsibility and driving related aggression.
an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. 1993. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander.3. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. the average number of accidents. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. p. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. but persists today. his or her accident proneness. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . West & French. 290). just as one can meaure height. According to Haight (2004).1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. personality. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. Research by board statisticians. 1984).finding. during and following the war years. found first that the frequency of accidents. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. 2. weight and perhaps even intelligence. 1962. In 1917. If each individual has a unique λ-value.3. p. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. sensori-motor skill. λ.152). “irrespective of environment. 1920). in certain cases. occupational and otherwise. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.
a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. but did not take into consideration whether. subjects reported significant. at home. inappropriate.out what that value is. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. in any sample. 195). noting that. 1956). as well. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Scores on the λ dimension. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 2004). but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. perhaps physiological. 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. made an assumption that. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. by devising clever tests. 2004). 1939) and many others. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. Johnson (1946). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. The accident-prone concept. “Because crashes are so infrequent. p. 1991. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. in a Finnish telephone survey. 422). The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. inadequate or irrelevant. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. None of the experiments. more probably psychological (p. 1997). 294). Farmer and Chambers (1926. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. produced a positive. however. in successive years. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. in traffic or when playing 29 . 1929.
moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . roadway.3. Pijl. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1993). in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. 1998). The concept itself is ill-defined. So. Stolk. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept.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 generating research and controversy (Vavrik. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p.sports. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. therefore. sports and family settings.05. pp. 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. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. 562). Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. 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. 1980. 8-9). While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.3. Ultimately. Visser. 2. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.
Wilde (1982. For example. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. following their review of the literature. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. The introduction of divided highways.3. 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. Elander et al.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. substantially. in fact. 2. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. crash barriers. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. 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. However. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. albeit not crash occurrence. 2. large earth-moving 31 .3. experience more accidents than others. A driver who enters a construction zone.4. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. in a study of driving on icy roads. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 2000). researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour..accident proneness (Chmiel. That is.
1997). would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 1989. Ranney. In two separate studies. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. a driver motoring along a wide. is if the level of target risk is reduced. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 2008. 1994. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. 1986. Collectively. p. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 2005). given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. according to the theory. 1988. McHugh & Pender.vehicles and warning flags. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 2002). 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. Michon. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. 14). 2001. according to the theory. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. That is. Conversely. flat. Fosser & Sætermo. Sagberg. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Wilde. Initially. at least until the target risk level was reached. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. When others (Haight. in turn. for example. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level.” (Fuller.
General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. Also. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. 2001. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. Lichtenstein. 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. 1977).” (Vaa. 223). Rothengatter. pay sufficient attention to risk. To the contrary. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 2008. (p. but they are not defined in psychological terms. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. or the nation” (Brown & Noy.. 2002). 1989. Slovic. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. More than any other driving theory. 1151). Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. 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. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. Fischoff. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. p. however. 2002). 1994.. 2004). Corrigan & Coombs. Evans 33 . the community. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. p. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. 53). and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 2004).target risk that people are willing to tolerate.
81). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 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. O’Neill and Williams (1998). In addition. 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. and 34 . 26). Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 92). they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. or expecting. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.4. Rather. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 2.3. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. 1987. for example. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. p. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. after a similar review.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. At this point. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. In other words. 2004. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Summala. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process.
3. for instance. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.1). 1998. Van der Hulst. such as time pressure.learn how to respond safety to. On the other hand. Hataaka. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Meijman & Roghengatter. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Summala (1996. as a result. much of which arises from personality. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. age and social variables. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 1996. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. Reeder et al. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. 2002. 35 . do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. A large number of studies show that external motives. Glad & Hernetkoskis. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. Keskinen. and specific driver actions. Gregersen. 1999). their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer.
but that is not 36 . Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 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. (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. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.1: Task Cube (from Summala. at the same time. 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. seemingly concurrently. a property absent within the task cube concept. 15). Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. for example.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping.
. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 2000) 37 .g. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 2. Fuller (2000. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 1982. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 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. Most of the time. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. high speeds. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.1).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 252). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.3. affective states). 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. However.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.
2. for the most part. p. emotional state. objects. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. providing an account of the way in which attitudes.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. Since 1985. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 126). 2004. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 40). largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.3. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.Fuller’s theory has. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. 1985. According to the TRA. time pressure). Two limitations have been noted. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. and Keskinen et al.3. 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. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Generally. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.6. 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. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. p. however. Fishbein & Ajzen. 1991).7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. 1985. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories.
24). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). p.2). and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). then. 2. 2007). 1985. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. however (Sharma & Kanekar.7. “Even very mundane activities. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. According to the TPB.” (Azjen. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.3. see Figure 2. To deal with this uncertainty. 39 . such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 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”). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control.
. 40 . A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). p. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 2003).3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 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. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. when intention is held constant. 253). 1989) Within the theory. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. In one study. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.e.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. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 2002. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. greater perceived control (i. Further. or sense of self-efficacy. 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. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.
1. Austin and Carson (2002). 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.2. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.4.In another study. Similar to later findings by Law et al. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Attitude toward speeding. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. 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. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. based on data extracted from police record forms. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. vehicles.4 2. 2.2). while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. but after controlling for distance travelled. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. 2002). for instance. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.
the vehicle (V). Seow & Lim. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. More recently. 2000). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.2 Process Models 2.4.locations and settings (e. 1994). Law. within specific situational contexts.2. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. Richardson & Downe. E and especially H factors. Nguntra. the road (R) and the environment (E). 1998.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1997. Koonchote & Tantiratna.. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. R. however. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.4). 1997) 42 . 1999).4. 2. Swaddiwudhipong. Mahasakpan.g.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).
on one hand. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. substance abuse) that. speeding.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. age.g. gender. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. Personality factors within the 43 . aggression).. more proximal variable. Within the generic model. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. contribute directly to crash outcomes. on the other hand.g. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. 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. Therefore. 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. extraversion. it may influence crash risk through some other. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.2.. By contrast.g.5)..4. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.2. as well. sensation seeking. Factors within the distal context include not only road. 283).
e.g. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. risk taking.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. As such. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. 2003) 44 . sensation seeking. psychological symptoms. depression. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. 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. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors.g. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents.
6(i). called the outcome. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency.4. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 45 . 2006). for instance. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. If. 1986). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.2. In Figure 2. 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. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. M. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. 2004). In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. moderating or mediating effects. Figure 2. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. Also termed intervening variables.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Tix and Barron.2. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 2003). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. such that path c′ is zero.
or dependent. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. or independent variable (path a). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). 2003). the impact of a moderator (path b). there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable.7): the impact of a predictor. 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. 1986). 46 . variable (see Figure 2. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis.
they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. and non-professional students who were mostly students. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. psychoticism). Further. In turn. However. anger). choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. hostility. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. given wide 47 . Using structured equation modelling. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. he found that. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. dangerous drinking). hostility.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. verbal aggression. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. errors). more relevant to the model he proposed. 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.2.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. anxiety. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression.4.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.
a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. as recommended by Elander et al. 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. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. Finally. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. lapses. McRae &Costa.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. al. agreeableness (helpfulness. Sümer. 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. in most cases. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 2005. 2003. Edward. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. or “Big Five”. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 1990) to a similar analysis.739).. Arthur. Day. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. sensation seeking). 1998). Greenwood & Yule. Tubré & Tubré. Here. sensation seeking patterns. Elander et. conscientiousness (dependability. In a subsequent study. trust). responsibility. broad-mindedness). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. for high-λ individuals. 1920). personality model (Costa & McRae. (1993) and others. Bell. Watson. 1995. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. applied the five factor. 2002. 1919. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1993).
but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. self esteem. Sümer. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. prior to the present one. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. 49 . Sümer.2. In other words. have acted on those recommendations. In another study. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. phobia. 2. anxiety. optimism. using a similar research design. navy. They found that the effect of proximal variables. 225). The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. reported that driver anger.aberrant driving behaviours. air force and gendarmerie. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Karanci. for instance. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Iverson and Rundmo (2002).4. material loss. hostility. Berument and Gunes (2005). including perceived control. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. Bilgic. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors.
Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Yet. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.. 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. Type A.. 2003. 2003). uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e.g.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Retting.1. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Weinstein & Solomon.8).5.g. 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. 2007) 2.. Odero et al.5. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Campbell & Williams. 2002. 1995).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Williams & Shabanova. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5 2.Downe (2007). 1997. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.
1986). are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Vassallo et al. Harré. Matthews & Moran. Jehle. for these difficulties. Jonah. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 2002a. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. specifically more likely to drive too fast. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . in many cases. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. this is a reflection of lifestyle. at least in part. Moscati. Connery & Stiller. In fact. However. p. finding that the riskiest young drivers in an Italian sample were also more likely to have adopted a lifestyle characterised by higher involvement in antisocial behaviour. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. the contrary appears to be true. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. drive while fatigued. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. Bina. Billittier. 221). but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. 2007). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. tobacco smoking. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. follow too closely.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism.. 2002a. overtake dangerously. 2001. less emotionally mature. 1997b. The former is less experienced at driving. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar.
are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. and that young drivers. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions).39). as age decreased. indirectly. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. 52 . 2007). since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. Vissers & Jessurun. it was hypothesised in the present study that. 2002). (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. 1999. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Similarly. on crash and injury occurrence. Stevenson et al. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Justification of age-related hypotheses. Ulleberg. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. In the present study. particularly with respect to controlling deviations.
Waller.5. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. MacGregor. 2004. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Shope. Elliott. it was also hypothesised that. for instance. Tavris.1. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Chipman.4). This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. as well. self-reported injury would also increase..failure to use seat-belts. p. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. it 53 .g. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. as age decreased. 129). men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. However.. 2. for instance. darkness)” (p. for instance. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. more often at hazardous times (e. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident.g. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). without exception. Monárrez-Espino. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. “In all studies and analyses. 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. and behaviours predictive of fatalities.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities.
2001). 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. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). At the same time. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Flyte & Garner. This is important. Dobson. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 525526). Lonczak. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Brown. to date. for instance. found that while male drivers. Lenard. 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. Welsh. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Ball.usually led to a single-vehicle crash.S. in a sample taken in the U. 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. worldwide. Woodcock. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. (b) females drive increasingly more. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. 1997. 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. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. state of Washington. which typically took place during evenings and nights. While there is much of value in such an approach.
In a subsequent report. it was hypothesised that males would be more likely to report higher-risk behaviour in traffic and would have higher aggression scores than would females. In other research. Forward. 2003). (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). alcohol consumption and for risky driving. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. indirectly. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. on crash and injury occurrence. et al. 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. and loss-of-control incidents. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. as per the traditional pattern. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. In a study of Dutch drivers. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Laapotti. evaluated their driving skill lower. Female drivers. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Turner & McClure.anger. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. (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. just as they had in 1978. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. on the other hand. 55 . 2006. were less frequently involved in crash situations.. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. In the present study. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. though. Lourens et al. 11). control of traffic situations. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. McKenna. showing that male drivers were.
Corry. Summala and Hartley (1998). finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Harper. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia.1. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Haliburton. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. for instance. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. differences in fatalities persisted. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Schlundt.5.S.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. But. To a large degree. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Lajunen. Goldweig and Warren. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. lower rates of safety belt use. 2005).2. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). nonCatholic countries. Levine. On the other hand. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Romano. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Marine. In one of the few studies reported. Garrett. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use.
In the present study. respect for elders. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. However. Fatalistic. in fact.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. on crash and injury occurrence.. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Indirect communication. Education. humility. harmony with nature. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. 2000. peace. respect for elders. cultural differences can be more subtle. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. 2005). cooperation. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Conscious of what other people say about us. family honour. prosperity and integrity. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. religion. family ties. piety. hierarchical. filial piety. Strong relationship orientation. indirectly. courtesy. 1999).2). Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. 1999). it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . While religious affiliation. Karma. face saving. Strong relationship orientation. Table 2. prosperity. shame-driven. hard work.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. polite behaviour.. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. brotherhood/sisterhood. They concluded that there were. Family centeredness. Roman et al. respect for knowledge. Spirituality. respect for elders.
Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. 2001). they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.behaviour in traffic. passenger distractions different vehicles. directionality of the effect was not predicted. etc. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. in a given road and traffic scenario. Allied to this. 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 indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. On the other hand.2. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Hatakka and Katila. As experience grows. although not always. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. and as such. increased experience usually. 166). 2. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 1971). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.5. 2002). 1995.2 Driver Characteristics 2. Lajunen & Summala. Keskinen. as drivers become more experienced. journey lengths. 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 .5.. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.g. with different weather conditions. Laapotti. A large number of studies have shown that.
but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.by Keskinen. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Hataaka and Katila (1992). they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Hatakka. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. Yet. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2.9). and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. 1996. 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. 59 . It assumes that. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. 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. 2004).9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. in many studies of age and gender differences. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. Internal models contain knowledge of route. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. direction and position Figure 2. environment. 2001).
and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. 1948. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. A simple measure of driving experience. 1949. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. 2007). Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. 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. Young novice drivers. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . on the other hand. 1954). the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Ghiselli & Brown. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. was used in this study. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Female novice drivers. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. and especially young male drivers. Peltzer and Renner (2003).g. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Mintz. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. for instance. Brown & Ghiselli.Laapotti et al. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. 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. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2004).
and type of route where. Duncan & Brown. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. McKenna. 1986.2. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. on crash and injury occurrence. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 1984. the miles they drive. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1984). 2002a).2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 1991). it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. for instance. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. 1971). there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. the concept is much less well developed. In individual differences research. Pelz & Schuman. Generally.5.. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. Wilde. 1993). All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. indirectly. 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. 2. 282). Elander et al. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 2001. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. driving occurs (Dewar. Rothengatter. it is accepted that the more one travels. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. Second. 1995. First.
2007. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Cairns. although much research does not (e. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. however. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Towner and Ward. (1999) have argued that. Justification of exposure hypotheses. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Yet. In the present study. Bina et al.hours than during the forenoon. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. as defined by Elander et al. indirectly. Ferguson. Lourens et al. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Williams & Shabanova. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. 2007. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Evans (1991) and others.. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure.g. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. (1986). 2003). Christie.. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. in countries like the USA. 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. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Mercer (1989) showed that. (1993). 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. on crash and injury occurrence. 62 . 2006. Odero et al. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. without correcting for annual mileage.. 2007). Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. Teoh & MCartt.
people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.3.2. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 1991. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.3. 1975. or externals . 15).5.g. Levenson (1975. 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. 1999). and second. 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. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice.1 Locus of Control 2.5.10). 2006. Hyman.. In contrast. Stanley & Burrows. 63 .1. Holder & Levi. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.3 Psychological Variables 2. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. or internals. 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). 1990). bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p. she separated the externality dimension into two.
Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.5. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 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. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. According to Phares (1976).10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.1. 64 . They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. luck. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.Luckner. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. Sinha & Watson.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.3.
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. On the other hand. 1987). however. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. however. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. In a subsequent study. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 1999). 39). 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. 65 . as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 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. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. French & Chan. 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.
They found that. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In a much earlier study. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. That is. Gidron. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. cognitive. Arthur et al. (p. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. offences. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. 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). 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. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 .Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. 1260). although internality was unrelated to DDB. In an important study. On the other hand. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables.
122). Israel. with situation-centred Confucian foundations.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions.5.3. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. 2. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. indicated that. Germany. In very early research. Canada and Japan.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Japan. (1991). moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Hsieh. Noy (1997). and the USA. complexity and unpredictability. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Their results. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . France. as hypothesised.1. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. India. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Noting that Chinese culture. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Italy. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. is based on the notion that … luck.
68 . Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. To the author’s knowledge. At the same time.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese of Malay extraction. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). 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. all internal characteristics. 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. In very early research. skill and ability. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Chinese and Indian populations. Cheung. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 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. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. This was very true for the locus of control variable. only Cheung.
First. Montag & Comrey. 1991. 2007). Niméus. Gilbody. 1975. Özkan & Lajunen. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. (2003). 1973). indirectly. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 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. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Cases usually 69 . Weissman. on crash and injury occurrence. Kovacs and Weissman.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. et al.5. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Finally. Ohberg. In the present study. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Fox & Klerman. Beresford & Neilly. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. McMillan.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.3. 1995. Sinha & Watson. 2007. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 2005). 1997. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. 2. 1975). it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. without objective basis. 1987. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality.
1974). it was 70 . Mendel.. on crash and injury occurrence. In the present study. including risky driving. 1990. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. 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. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Breen and Lussier (1976). and crash risk (Ohberg et al. in a more detailed study. for instance. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1962).involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Second. luck. Selzer & Payne. Henderson. assertiveness and positive emotion. 1976. 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. Prociuk. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. and negatively predicted by extraversion. indirectly. Firestone & Seiden. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Very early on. in fact. 1962). 1997. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1998. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Several authors. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.
. 71 . 2. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. and deindividuation. 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. Wright & Crundall. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion. 2002). Demakakos. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Mizell.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 2002. Underwood. 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. Bakou. Malta & Blanchard. including subjective feelings of stress. & Darviri. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. learned disinhibitory cues. In a largely unrelated study. Koumaki. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Tzamalouka. physiological arousal. Lynch & Oetting. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Filetti. 2003. Chapman.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Richards. 2000. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Barton and Malta. Wells-Parker et al. 2000. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Chliaoutaks. learned cognitive scripts. Deffenbacher. 2006). sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers.5. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 1999.3.
raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. (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. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. 1962). rather than a cause of. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. as another. lack of control over events. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Houston. 1976. the display of aggression (p. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. such as TAPB. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Groeger (2000). Ellis. Talley. though. Schwebel et al. More recently. Bettencourt. Snyder. stress induced by time pressure. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. 163). through the use of self-statements. 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.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. Crowson. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. However.
aggression. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Petrilli. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Frueh & Snyder. 2006). 2006. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Lynch. Thurman. It was also hypothesised. Elofsson & Krakau. Carbone. James & Nahl. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. 2. competitiveness. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Magnavita. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2002. Williams & Haney. Later still. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. McKee. 2000. Blumenthal. Miyake. indirectly. Sani. Karlberg. 1998. Deffenbacher. Kamada.. 2001). Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 1999. Bettencourt et al. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Rice.6 2. al. 73 .6. Kumashiro & Kume. In the present study. Sato. and specific content. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. (2003). 1999). 1999. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al.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. Narda. insecurity about status.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. 1985). Undén. that the total amount. impatience. 1981. on crash and injury occurrence.
Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. In none of these studies. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. (1998). was driving frequency. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. studied police officers in Italy. it may be questionable as to whether subjects would have recorded the same score on the measure of Type A behaviour on the day of their motor vehicle crash as they did when tested in the laboratory up to eight years earlier. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Zzanski & Rosenman. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. driving style.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Chastang. however. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. West. Nabi et al. Raikkonen. alcohol consumption. age. Chiron. socio-professional category. but not with accident risk. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. category of vehicle. Karlberg et al. similarly. Nabi. focused on the time urgency component 74 . particularly in driving situations that require prudence.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. 1989. 1979) and number of accidents. where Type A drivers were 4. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. 1990). tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. gender. 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. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). for instance. Consoli. In a correlational study of British drivers. however.
freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score.6. 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). Glass. ethnicity. 1977). 2. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. namely “externally-focused frustration”. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Gender. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003). Of the four BIT factors. then use of the Type A/B 75 . Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. In a subsequent study.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. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. At the same time. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. on the other hand.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.
driving experience.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. including gender. In neither of their studies. hopelessness. Specifically. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. At the present time. 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. locus of control. Similarly. To the author’s knowledge. 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. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. although ethnicity. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. 13). on the other hand. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. though. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. that are measured by the BIT scale. They argued that it would be preferable. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. ethnicity. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. In the present study.
1986. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 77 . West et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 1993) and. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Miles & Johnson. Further. 2003. 2005.. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. 1985).hostile automatic thought. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence..
Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. with the addition of a third psychological variable. 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. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. Then. 1B and 1C.3).1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. 78 . the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.1). with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3.2). In Study 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. each study explored the extent to which demographic. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. aggression (see Figure 3. In Study 1B.
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
such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. For each of the five studies undertaken.2. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. a thought process that expects nothing. In the present research. 1994). 3. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 1999). cognitive. For the purposes of the present research. Lester and Trexler (1974). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. affective. a separate score for internality (I). 3. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 25). Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. overlapping and ambiguous. but not chance.2. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. Weissman.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).
the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Specifically. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. through fighting. were also investigated. In the present research. 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. 1996). 2005). generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. frustration. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 2003. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. hitting or interpersonal violence. 1957. Deffenbacher. and. Lynch & Morris. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. expressed through the presence of irritability. Bergeron & Vallerand. Vallières. social alienation and paranoia.2. Oetting.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee.
being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . not allowing others to merge or overtake. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). 1998).2.g. 3.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. characterised by excessive impatience. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others. and. (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. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.. frequent lane changing. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.. competitiveness. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. hit or kill another individual.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. the BIT score.
2.g. to the extent of inattention conditions.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 88 . the influence of driving experience. in Study 1A. 3. 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.. 3.them (e.2. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. Then.3. In the resulting measure of this variable. In the resulting measure of this variable. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. and.3 3. Then. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). (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.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. while driving. travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. three demographic variables (driver age.
three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. In Study 1B. Figure 3.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. the influence of driving characteristics. three demographic variables (driver age. 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. Finally. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. travel frequency.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Finally. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. 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.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age. Then. travel frequency. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In this study. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. Figure 3. 3. In this study. Then. hopelessness.
1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Finally. 3. 3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.3. the influence of experience. First.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. and (b) taxi experience. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. Finally.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. 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 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. 90 . the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. This was justified for three reasons. Figure 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Figure 3. Figure 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. In Study 3.
limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. Second.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2. Third.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3. 3.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H126.96.36.199:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H188.8.131.52: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1.
2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.Table 3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H184.108.40.206: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: 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: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: 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: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.
2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: 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: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. 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.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.5.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.5 3.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. within a 14-month period. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.Table 3.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.
although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 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. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. 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. during a point to point trip. 1978). Stokals & Campbell.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Data collection took place within the taxicab.5. Stokols.g. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab..5. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.2. For inclusion in the study. while participants were driving. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. by postal mail. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. In all cases. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. in the case of Study 3 participants. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). I try to urge its driver to move 94 . 3. Novaco.2 Research Instruments 3. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.
91) were found to be internally consistent. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). On each form. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” II. to school or to an appointment with someone.2. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.80. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. as indicated in table 3.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Freeway urgency 14 III. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. In a later study. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Usurpation of right-ofway No.” “While travelling to work (or to school). based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . with a coefficient alpha of . Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.” “On a clear highway. Table 3.
2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). A sample item is “When I get what I want. 3. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. References to the faster. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. 96 .5. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.2. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.
5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. if not.” “If I’m angry enough. I may mess up someone’s work. 1982. 1974).3). hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. I may tell them what I think of them.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” 97 . Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Of the 20 true-false statements. 2005. or 0. 1996). Tanaka et al.” “When someone really irritates me. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 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”. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.2. 3. verbal aggression.” “When people annoy me. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.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.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. anger. 1993.3.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.5. Beck et al.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.” “I get into fights more than most people. Durham. Table 3.5. if endorsed. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. and five subscales measure physical aggression.
” 3. Williams. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.88 and .71 to . 98 . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.4).” “I want to get back at this person.91 for physical aggression.5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 1996). gender.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.92. age. . derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.2. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. Three factors – physical aggression. Table 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Cascardi & Pythress. 5 = “all the time”). 1997.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. 3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.2. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Shapiro. 2000).” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. derogation of others and revenge respectively. with coefficient alpha values of .6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 1997. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Snyder et al.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. Boyd.5.
In studies 1 and 2. upon request. BIT scale. in random order. BHS. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. BHS. Levenson.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. with an e-mail summary of results. Levenson.6. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. between the two forms of the BIT. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Study 1C: PIF.3. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. AQ and HAT. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. 99 . (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Levenson and BIT scale. BIT scale and AQ.6 3. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. BHS. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. Study 1B: PIF. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. After the briefing period.
For safety reasons. rel. The PIF was always administered first. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Levenson Locus of Control scale. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Over the course of the trip. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. as well. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. Two to four times daily. 8. AQ and Levenson scales. At initial contact. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. 3. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 2004). data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 100 . Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS.3. 13. Data collection took place in taxicabs. Independent-sample t-tests. four female final-year undergraduate students. 2002). Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.5.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. research assistants verbally administered the PIF.0. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. analyses of variance (ANOVA). aged 22 to 24 years. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.5.6. rel.2 Study 3 For study 3. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. BIT. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.
1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: 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: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.Table 3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: “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 H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.
3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level H8.1: The higher the Internality. 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 H9.4: 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.Table 3.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.
1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.7. In the present research.7.Table 3. 2000). t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control. hopelessness.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: 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 H15.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. In the present study. hopelessness. When significant differences were observed. 103 . 3.2: 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. locus of control. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.
Also. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. In the present research. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. if so. In the present research.7.7. 104 . the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. second. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable.7.3. For instance. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). hopelessness. 3. 3. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). first P scores were entered into the regression equation. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.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.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. hopelessness.
Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. That is. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.7 Structural Equation Modelling. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. 3. SEM was carried out. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 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). as well as between several latent constructs” (p. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.3. In the present research. In the present research. using LISREL. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . logistic regression.7. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. on the other hand. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred.7. 710). Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted.
p. Thus.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. including: (1) two absolute indexes.. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. 1998). the better the model is said to fit. 2006. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). in fact. In the present research. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. (1988). The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). (Hair et al. 745). the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. According to Marsh et al. 1998) – presently exists. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. For Study 1C.
RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. However. 2006). and a measure of parsimony fit. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). Thus. 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.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.0. the ratio indicates a good fit. the higher the probability associated with χ2. an insignificant p-value is expected. 3. 2006).7. 3.00 in which values greater than .7. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. one incremental index.10 indicate poor fit. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 112). the normed fit index (NFI).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. 1998. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7. Hair et al.1 Chi-Square (χ2).. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 1998). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 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. 107 .validation index (ECVI).7. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.7. pp.7.
108 . 3.00 with value closes to 1.7.00. Tanaka & Huba..00 with value more than . Values range from zero to 1. Thus.7. an RMR greater than . 3. with higher values indicating better fit. Bentler & Bonnet.00 being indicative of good fit.7. 2006).7.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. 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.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI.7.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 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. The index can range from zero to 1.00. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. The index ranges between zero and 1. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.
00.7. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. Mulaik & Brett. Values range between zero and 1. 1994). 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.00. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 750). James. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 2006). Like other parsimony fit indices. Browne & Cudeck.. In such cases. It should be noted that. 2006. in this case.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. 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. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. considering its fit relative to its complexity. p.3.7. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.7. 3. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. 109 . Although values range from zero to 1.7. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.
the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. If the opposite holds.3. 1976).9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. p.05. In this case. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 2000). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. it is said to be positively skewed. 3. 37). “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. in this case.7. 1976. 1956). the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.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.7. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 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.
normality of variable distributions. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 1997). Barrett & Morgan. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 2005. Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that. 111 .
9% 14. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1% 34.55).4% 269 27. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.4% 146 14. 4.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .4% 333 62.5% 6.6% 12.5% 27.1% 536 100% 54. with a mean age of 20.1% 562 57.6% 15. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1.6% 82 15. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). Then.9% 23.1% 121 22. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.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. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1 4.1).5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.13 years (SD = 1. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% 57.1 Description of the Samples Age.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. Table 4.9% Total 441 100% 45.3% 8.
In Study 1B. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1A. Thus.01 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1. range of 18 to 26). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.53. followed by Malay (27. In Study 1C. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 29).68.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.5 per cent).1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. In Study 2. with a mean age of 20. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered.9 per cent). 113 . 149 taxicab drivers participated.25 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25).63. with a mean age of 19. In Study 3.89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.35. range from 18 to 27). Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.
7 4. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.19 S.25 43.5 114 .3% of the sample. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.1 6.19 years (SD = 11.89 20. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.43 19.4% of the sample. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. The mean age was 43.53 1. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.35 1. Johor or Perak made up 53.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. 1. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.01 20.1.2 7. SD = standard deviation 4.65 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 .65.68 1. range from 23 to 73). Table 4.2.9 2. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.3). Kuala Lumpur. Table 4.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.D.5 8.3 11.63 11.2: Age.
2 17. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.8 11.8 9.8 5.6 100 4.6 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 % 13.4).9 7.9 0.2 3.0 10.4 4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.7 100 4.7 3.1.1% of the sample.5 1.6 1.7 11.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. As the sample was 115 .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. Table 4.5 14.9% of the sample.1.2 2. Perak or Penang made up 50.4 0. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.0 7.1 9.
intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.2 4.1 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. 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. 116 .2. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.5). A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 1978). 2000). Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 4.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. In the present research.
783 .737 .711 .890 .881 α .774 .707 .727 .786 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .824 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .810 .798 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .747 .817 .720 .701 .784 .783 .738 .782 .740 .718 .741 .756 .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.733 .887 .742 .808 .781 .715 .811 .830 .740 .808 .714 .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 .735 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .720 .730 .739 .702 .Table 4.749 .703 .754 .788 .910 .906 .715 .727 .782 .827 .772 α .904 .734 .
802 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.903 .80 or above). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.857 .876 .804 . only Form A was used.803 .953 .807 .10 indicate a mediocre fit. 1998).807 Study 1B . 205). 118 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. values ranging from .808 Study 2 . Table 4. Byrne.958 .801 . 1998.800 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.811 . In Study 3. 1998). 1998).916 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.80. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.2.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A .804 Study 1C .2.804 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. RMSEA values less than .929 .806 .6.05 indicate good fit.4. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 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. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. 1985).805 . and those greater than . more than . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.08 to . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. depending on which is used (Byrne.
089 .91 .048 . 1992). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .061 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.00 .98 .7.00 .054 .91 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1.96 . 4.070 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.93 .000 .97 .99 .95 1.99 .99 .047 .97 1.00 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 .96 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.077 . the higher the goodness-of-fit). freeway urgency. RMSEA values in each case were less than .90.00 .097 .98 1. and destination-activity orientation. If the value of CFI exceeds . indicating good fits.92 .097 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .99 .98 .00 1.2. externally-focused frustration.000 .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 . A third statistic.97 1.98 1.00 .96 1. Table 4.96 .90. As shown in Table 4.000 .000 .00 1.074 .00 1.000 .000 .99 .000 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 1.024 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 (the closer to 1.098 .00 .00.92 1.92 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.3.00 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.00 1.00 1.00 1.
2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).100.91 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.2.96 .096 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.3.000 .98 .96 .00 . RMSEA values were less than .93 .081 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).93 .083 .085 .93 .96 .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) .97 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).4. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.073 .059 .98 .99 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 .91 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .93 .99 .030 .091 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .93 . anger (ANG).92 .95 .081 .95 1. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.90.8.91 .3.98 .071 .93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.2.97 .92 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.063 .95 . verbal aggression (VER).96 .052 .058 .085 . Table 4.93 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).
2.047 . RMSEA values were less than .081 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.089 .98 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .99 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .088 .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 .94 .97 .98 .98 .92 .98 .090 .98 .97 .100. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.(IND).100.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). derogation of others and revenge. RMSEA values were less than .055 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .096 .10).94 .070 .97 .95 .97 .95 .3.098 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.070 .025 .97 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.095 .92 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.92 .088 .9).97 .058 .98 .90. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .96 .96 .97 . Table 4.98 .98 .081 .90.073 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.93 .96 . Table 4.97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.083 .098 .97 .
560(. Marcoulides & Hershberger. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.280) .280) -.379(.280) .428) .280) -.4.140) -.107 (. 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 1.126(.183) 1.190) 1.280) -.140) -. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.219 (.297(.511(.239 (.191) 1.246(.099(.064(.05).082 (.280) -.120) 1. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) .805(.140) -. Table 4.069) 1.280) .140) -.052) 1.656(.154(.280) -. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.323 (.091(.560(.332 (.020 (.183) 1.331(.140) .353(.403(.105 (..256 (.280) .280) .192) 1.140) .195 (. Table 4.453(.140) .241(. In all cases.280) -.280) -.057) 1.064(.719(.410(.140) .140) -.920(.140) .203(.085 (.085) 1.034 (.408(.297 (.3 Normality.140) -.140) -.080(.260) .140) -..140) .140) -.280) .188(.297(.186) 1.582(.146(. 2005.091(.022 (.280) .179(.126(.280) -.106) 1.280) -.179(.099) 1.102) 1.280) .010 (.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.278(.140) .280) .085) 1.099) 1.351 (.140) -.409(.094 (.280) .192(.278(.037(. 2006). 1997).356 (.875(.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 .107) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.226 (.204(.962 (.064) 1.140) -.085 (.11: Normality Tests. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .091) 1.280) .409(.099(.
467(.805 (.219) -.195 (.962 (.247) .113 (.681(.533) .210) -.799(.084) 1.417) -.153) .110 (.223 (.153) -.219) .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) .219) .306) .435) -.022 (.360) .100) .187) 1.537(.435) .153) .366(.435) -.099) 1.540(.153) .713(.306) .375) 1.051) 1.070 (.640(.414(.062(.244(.417) .417) -.053(.051) .153) .098) 1.841(.911 (305) 1.153) 983(.Table 4.198(.567(.338 (.392(.219) -.435) -.219) .435) -.106 (.276 (.417) -.435) -.295(.327 (.852(.128) .300(.979(.913 (.719(.186(.354 (.007(.426) .435) -.847 (.267) .994(.417) -.807 (.153) .102) .915(.503(.306) -.210) .362(.247) 1.271(.919 (.219) -.497(.052) 1.024 (.147(.128 (.022 (.629(.219) .156(.138) 1.106(.210) .236(.884(.210) -.478(.101) 1.306) -.277(.293 (.106(.952(.370(.812(.003 (.210) .417) .972(.265) 1.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.417) -.501(.153) .451(.210) .360) .306) -.157) .423(.135) 1.214) 1.266 (.001 (.153) .417) .435) -.417) .160 (.510) 1.153) .360) .120(.321) 1.088 (.209(.279 (.973(306) .259) .053(.064) 1.159(.962(.130(.366) 1.011 (.052) 1.131(.024 (.360) -.463(.306) -.306) .297 (.264) .948(.443(.715(.959 (.219) .210) .417) -.359 (.030(.270) 1.142(.104) 1.913(.210) .822 (.324(.098) 1.153) .306) -.986 (.048(.317) 1.210) .154) -.469) 1.153) .417) -.417) -.138(.153) .276(.057) 1.006(.306) -.306) .567(.147(.978(.359 (.210) -.256(.852(.940(.153) -.153) .306) .
(3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. 124 . For motorcycle drivers.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.12. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 220.127.116.11 per cent being hospitalised. if so. with 44. injury occurrence was much higher. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.13). column a). column c). However.12. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. Table 4. column b). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.
14) Regardless of ethnic background. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in 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 . involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4.
Study 1C. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. All these correlations were significant (p<. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.17 shows means. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.4.05). BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). crash occurrence and crash injury. Table 4. freeway urgency. 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.15 shows means. and destination-activity orientation.05).05).5. Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. standard deviations and relationships between distal. in Study 1B. Also. standard deviations and relationships between distal.16 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. However.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. 126 .5 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. 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. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
371** .D.942** 1 .533** .513** .191** .239** .716** .211** .78 .23 2.45 6.405** .553** -.Table 4.566** 1 -.342** -.804** .625** .376** .280** .5 5.00 165.376** .97 43.64 7.345** 1 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.08 2.57 4.278** .471** .442 1 -.662** 1 .231** .246** .147* . 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.04 26.202** .69 24.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .129* .96 19.381** .388** .3455 .201** .247** .516** 1 -.218** .88 7.15: Means.152** .58 .544** -.155** .027 1 .209** 1 .391** -.482** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .749** .306** .2691 6.22 3.416** 1 .036 .147* -.562** -.901** .76 3.340** .435** .186** .44 4.52 34.434** .818** 1 .316** .476 .339** .396** .
278** 1 -.505** .089 -.515** .85 9.43 12.463** .378** .84 7.294** 1 .366** .816** .140* .489**.150** .376** .434** .86 6.430** .051 .099 .56 2 4.921** .25 8 18.Table 4.521** .298** .254** .341** .200** .45 5 87.279** .496** .013 1 .355** .550** .240** .157** .445** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .028 .D.167** .071 .584** -.443** .411** .462** .53 19.236** .842** 1 .173* .4624 1 -.178** .41 3.331** .159 -.225** .586** .514** .039 .4960 17 .414** .162** .91 15 27.964** 1 .762** .358** .418** .401** .542** .491** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.82 7 13.355** .331** .48 5.276** .363** .587** 1 -.380** .97 4 4.69 8.343** .602** 1 .271** .353** .481** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.438** 1 .697** 1 .66 3.319** .3079 .342** .50 5.00 14 19.516** .491** .22 4.275** .816** .509** .55 9 21.461** .213** .254** .540** .14 4.731** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.9 28.369** .148* .9 12 71.268** .195** .440**.147** .028 -.312** 1 -.555** .688**.531** .5695 .382** 1 -.444** .393** .172** .400** .48 3.337** .408** .355** .763** .16: Means.286* .176* .272** .5 6 17.335** .9 13 46.213** .06 3 2.347** 1 -.386** .523** .669** 1 -.855** .254** .324** .84 5.380** .153** .847** .372** .518** .343** .779** 1 -.448** .103 -.452** .338** .520** .213** .60 10 16.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .067 -.103 -.172** .003 .334** .403** .407** 1 -.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 .310** .
516 .150* .278** .52 7.109 .166** .342** .70 1 2 4.302** .120 .508** .275** .387** .747** .451** .130** .745** 1 7 13.465** .383** .227** .075 .292** .235** .69 -.271** .530** .264** .148** .258** .281** .150* .401** .265** 1 19 25.281** .304** .151* .199**.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.404** .245** .615** .9 -.293** .64 -.210**.402** .456** .277** 1 8 19.277**.185** .286** .7 28.367** .725** .131* .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .191** 1 3 .413** .259** .210** .139** .70 3.-181** .17 -.89 5.98 4.219** .209** .91 -.17: Means.370** .246** .189** .306** .263** .862** .224**.254** .58 9. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.241** .229** .349** 1 16 67.095 .345** .8 -.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .314** .446** .076 .306** .069 .05 -.221** .422 -.158** .228** .364**.565** .424** 1 12 18.379** .402** .37 6.230** .03 -.501 .735** .141* .095 .323** .11 12.224** .313** .395** 1 11 65.749** .378** .368** .308** .31 3.252** .67 7.167** .36 -.338** .191** .181** .481** .033 .592** .250** .502** .588** 1 14 20.277** .310** .183** .97 -.174** .518** .202** .196** .192**.199** .804** .80 17.228** .412** .110 .162**.222** .307**.296** .392** .320** .241** .016 .373** .192** .291** .275** .178** .189** .226** .641** 1 4 4.00 -.78 8.268**.357** .003 .193**.038 .324** .101**.70 8.856** 1 17 43.288** .343** .166** .356** .423** .212** .081 .434** .109 .531** 1 10 16.85 19.278** .051 .484** .082 .254** .151* .270** .545** .354** 1 5 88.304** .448** .D.203** .506** .261** .49 6.476** .390** .137* .364** .296** .216** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .305** .03 5.119* 1 21 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.38 5.292** .Table 4.294** .454** .838** .355** .530** 1 Note: (1) Internality (2) Externality-Chance (3) Externality-Powerful-Other (4) Hopelessness (5) Total Aggression (6) Physical Aggression (7) Verbal Aggression (8) Anger (9) Hostility (10) Indirect Aggression (11) Hostile Automatic Thoughts (12) HAT-Physical Aggression (13) HAT-Derogation of others (14) HAT-Revenge (15) Behaviour in Traffic (16) Usurpation of right-of-way (17) Freeway Urgency (18) Externally-Focused Frustration (19) Destination-activity Orientation (20) Crash Occurrence (21) Injury Occurrence * Correlation is significant at .106 .251** .428** .377** .9 -.422** 1 9 22.17 -.183** .298** .31 -.270** .235** .385** .230** .348** 1 6 16.343** .895** 1 13 26.86 -.057 .534** 1 18 19.18 -.81 5.311** .183** .296** .81 -.366** .340** .218** .103** .526** .221** .186** .202** .259** .230 .483** .42 3.7 -.
it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. 1B and 1C. and destination-activity orientation. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. all BIT subscales. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. freeway urgency. Similar to observed results in study 1A. 130 .5. externally-focused frustration.18 shows means. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. However. 4.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal.
072 . 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.325** .264** .349** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .192* -.409** .323 23.500** .150 -.941** 1 .081 8.269** .043 .562** 1 .48 5.06 20.535** 1 .383** .485 11.240** .334** .122 7.219** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .76 48.4683 .313** 1 .200* -.371** -.14 27.413** .18: Means.232** .66 5.374** .165 .290** .314** .226** .182* -.630** .50 73.D.5738 8.4966 1 .614** .415** .259** .Table 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.111 -.758** 1 .201* .291** .428** .55 175.66 1.179 7.183* 1 .233** .212* .025 -.413** 1 .880 .167 .028 1 .621 3.876** .035 3.750** .30 .917 3.6803 .376** .418** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .317** .251** .367** .139 .580** 1 .356** .
neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.5. In this study. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. 1B. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 132 . However.19. standard deviations and relationships between distal.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4.19 shows means. In general. 1C and 2.4. correlations between I and distal. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Differing from Studies 1A. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.
121 .070 -.039 .13 3.88 1 .99 10.618** 1 .225** .054 .149 .404 .213** .060 .067 .604** .048 .091 -.150** .292** .378** 1 .156 .229** .172** .05 3.200* .204* .091 .147** .84 2.061 .528** 1 .112 -.43 8.816** .109 -.167** .018 -.060 -.254** -.10 1.271** .07 8.82 5.54 11.418** .4 5.51 3.65 75.338** 1 .180** .807** .040 .235** .194* .263** .103 .324** .31 8.072 .261** .658** .149 .82 11.576** .193* -.721** .245** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .246** . 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 12.121 .268** .32 3.35 11.148* .286* 1 .182* -.092** .072 -.454** .166 .177 1 .289** 1 .171 .235** .222* .443** 1 .106 .864** 1 .853** .128 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.42 66.151 -.08 15.11 15.028 .401** -.120 .178** .116 .236** .197* .646** .234** .255** .561** 1 .194* 1 .257** .588** 1 .2000 .117 .12 4.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .749** .023 -.152 .161 -.17 20.622** .173* .74 15.023 .521** .D.275** .373** .0301 .095 .030 .071 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .156 .15 32.114 .240** .218* .032 1 .141 .06 2.117 .Table 4.240** .32 7.276** .3 6.013 .371** .45 19.872** .020 .165 .117 .643** .153** 1 .19: Means.025 -.636** .213** .
01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.041.146.01. p<. Table 4.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. p<. 4.20).01 Study 1C B=.034.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.01 B=.063. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<. freeway urgency.01 B=.172.218.104.22.168. For the destination-activity factor.01 B=. p<.3 inclusive. 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=. and externally-focused frustration. These results supported H1. Study 1B: B=.095.180. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 Study 1B B=.117. p<.135. p<.315.01 Study 3 B=.090.102. These results supported H1.01 B=.01).1 through H1.1). p<.229. p<. p<. p<.1.01.4.01 B=.063.01 and Study 3: B=.125.120. p<.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 134 .01 B=.01.238.080.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.202.01 B=. p<.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=. Study 2: B=.01 B=.01 B=.04. p<. p<. but not destination-activity orientation. H1. p<. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. p<.01 B=. p<.048. p<.095.6.01 B=.4 was not supported. p<. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.088 p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=. p<. p<.
118.01 B=.035. p<.075 p<.095.05 Study 1B B=.01.01 B=.054.165.01 Study 1C B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. p<.22. respectively). These results supported H1. p<.033 p<.24.059.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.091.01 B=. p<.087. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.2. Study 1B: B=.120.01).069.038.01 B=.01.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 and Study 2: B=. p<. p<. p<.074.21). logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.019. Table 4. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=.01 B=. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.035. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. freeway urgency. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.158. 135 . Table 4.23 and Table 4.064. p<. Study 1C: B=.01 B=. p<. p<.140.6. p<.
01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.32 28.06 19.184** 136 .48 171.23: 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<.56 175.64 26.60 185.15 161.77 165.68 26.25 5.44 178.88 28.41 167.92 157.77 8.73 170.600** Table 4.05.43 20.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.52 25.35 33.89 21.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.82 33.30 22.25 25.64 27.35 4.Table 4.82 168.98 33.22: 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<.32 147.35 24.03 25.50 28.01. * p<.35 155.31 161. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.29 21.16 3.98 171.
motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.39 19.88 167.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.Table 4.05).05.01 14.53 17.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.52 3. 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<.060** In Study 1A. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.81 167. about once every two weeks (p<.12 154.24: 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<.06 8. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.73 24.05). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01).00 16.73 157. and those who almost never travelled (p<.25). In Study 2.05).01. In Study 1B. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.12 161. * p<.01). N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. On the other hand.06 160.01). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.00 14.01). In Study 1C.01). 137 .77 16.14 15.61 165.29 15. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.
S) Therefore.27 14.74 77.58 188.71 168.33 78.37 9.82 162. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. Table 4.50 24.55 10. * p<.62 10.753* 38 48 27 20 77.89 20.81 22. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. * p<.63 1.94 20.50 184.437 (N.316 1. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.47 5.01.31 2.81 161. N.26).S.01.920 (N. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.859 11. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.25: 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<. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .05.97 8. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.65 73.381 10.31 78.09 15. However.26 10.81 175. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Variable Driver Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Taxicab Driving Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Note: ** p<. However.S. 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.05.68 20.64 24. In other words.60 72.Table 4. N.56 3.528** In Study 3.55 73.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.80 22.52 172.
2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. 139 . ANOVA results for age. In Studies 1A.2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 4. ethnicity and age – were investigated. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. For ethnicity. 1B. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Again. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. though. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.been predicted by H2.1 and H2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.27).2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. In Study 2. 1C and 2. 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. In this case. only H2.1 was confirmed. the lower was the total BIT score. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.6. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. 1B. only H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. however. In Study 3.
H3.6.562. however. male 140 . p<.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.05 F=11.81. N. N. Study 1C t=3. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.01 F=9.S.01 F=. Therefore. 1C and Study 2. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. p<.05. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.66. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.98. Study 2 t=3.74.53. p<.S. p<.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. In Study 3. In Study 1B.01 F=1.2 was confirmed. N.05). t(250) = 2.S.12. 4. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. p<.05.68. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. H3.01 F=19. p<. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.2 were confirmed.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<.Table 4.99. N. p<. p<. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. In Study 1C. N. p<. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.05).9. In all studies.00. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Study 1B t=2.62.56.05 F=4. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).44. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1.S.01 F=2.3 was not supported.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.01 F=8. In Study 1A and Study 2. In Study 1B.01).
05). Consistent with findings in Study 1A.01 respectively).462.05 and F(2. F(2. 1C.041. In Study 2. 119) = 5.05.566. t(299) = 2.01).01). p<.05 respectively.941. p<. 249) = 3. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.476.05 respectively. E and P scores.503. p<. 299) = 3. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. In Study 1A. 298) = 6.05. 298) = 3. F(2. In Study 1B. p<.527. p<. F(2.370.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 1B. F(2.05 and p<. 299) = 5.01 respectively. For Studies 1A. p<.05 and F(2. p<. t(120) = 2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. In Study 1C. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<.490. F(2. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05). 141 . ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 298) = 3.01.
H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. H4.3 were not supported. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. H5. 142 .3 were supported.3. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3 was supported.079. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.3. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2.6. However. 1B or 1C. in Study 2.01).05. were supported. H4. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.2 and H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.2.2. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. that age influences hopelessness. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.1.1. Therefore.2 and H4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.1 and H5. p<.3. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. H5. In addition. In Study 1.Therefore. t(120) = 2. 4. so H4.
Therefore.01 and B = . p<.01 and B = .1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.254. were supported.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. respectively). I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01. In Study 2.6. p<.1. H6.01 respectively).341. 4. p<.186. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. respectively).2 and H6. p<.3. 143 .2 and H6. p<.342. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .4.290.01. H6. was not supported. respectively).01 and (B = . p<.254.239. p<.371.3.28). that internality would influence hopelessness.312. were supported. In Study 1B. In Study 1C. H6.354. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. p<. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<.306. 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. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.6.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.
4. p<.S.287. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .141.151.349. H7. p<. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. H7. p<. p<. 1C and 2. N. freeway urgency (B = .05 Study 2 B=.01).01 B=.317.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151. In Study 1B.280.157.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . In Study 1C.01 B=. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.232. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.151.05 In Study 1A. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.01). externally-focused frustration (B = .275.01 B=. p<. p<.247. p<.153. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.280.317. p<.191. p<. p<. In Study 2. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .247. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 B=. p<.254.254.01 Study 1B B=.278.275. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.01 B=.232.157.Table 4.01 B=. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.2. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.01 B=.222.214.171.124. p<.05).415. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.05 B=. 144 .153. was supported in Studies 1A. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.05). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.415. Therefore. p<.3 and H7.191.01). p<.01 B=.288.01). p<.01 B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.05).349. freeway urgency (B =. p<. B=.418.141. externally-focused frustration (B = .01). p<. p<. H7.05 Study 1C B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.01).099.
229. provided support for hypothesis H8. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. p<.01 B=. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.2. With regard to H8.01 B=-.625.S.1. B=.339. Therefore.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. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3.01 B=.239. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.S.01 B=.006.388. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S. B=.01 B=-. N.6.336.01 B=-.044. p<.753.05 B=. p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.208. H8.01 B=.01 B=.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.178.315. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.077.2. H8.01 B=-. p<. p<. where only H8. p<.29).01 B=.1. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. that the higher the subscale score for I. p<. N.297.1 and H8.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.2 and H8. p<. but not H8. p<. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.1.01 B=.168. N. 145 . Table 4.4. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. With regard to H8.3. H8. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.
Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.01 (see Figure 4.05. F=4.01 and F=8. =8.704. Further.2). p<. F=4.272.1). it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. F=7.01 respectively (see Figure 4.909. p<. p<.581. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. In Study 1C. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.01 (see Figure 4. 146 .710.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. 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. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.1). externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. p<.
00 64.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. 1B and 1C.6. However.00 62.282. B = . Kurtosis=-.00 68.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. in Study 2.00 MalaysianIndian 70. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.05. p<.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.327. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.3).444. 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 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. F=4. multiple regression showed mixed results. First.033.00 66. p<.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.034. R2=. 147 .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.4).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.459.01. p<. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Kurtosis=-. F=18. p<. B = . R2=.608.463.070.167.371).01.3: 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=.
the H9. p<. However. With motorcycle drivers.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. p<. p<. 1C and 3.Therefore.1. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. 249) = 5. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. t= .521.30). and H9. F(2.01 t=4.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. p<.480. p<.780. t(300) = 2.01 t=2. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. p<.210.032. In Study 1B and Study 3.467. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. however. 4. p<.677. and t(250) = 2.298.187.603. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.6. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. N.2.01 t=2.05 t=.S t=1.690. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.S t=2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.01 (see table 4. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<. Table 4. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .01 t=-. N.603.S t=2.820.05 respectively. N.01. p<.S. were supported. p<. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.31). In both studies. In Study 1C.690.05 t=4.164.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.05 Study 1C t=2.
S.561.432. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. 299) = 4.01 Study 3 F=1. 299) = 5. F(2.904. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<.422.182. F=1.S.521.S. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.S F=10.57.S.526. F=2.05 Study 1C F=5. F=2.629. F=1.077.632.S. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. In Study 3. p<.564. Table 4. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. F=1. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F(2. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. 150 . p<.01). mean IND scores of Malay. N. F(2. 249) = 10.041.S.804. In Study 1B. N.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=2.763.398.01). N.S. F=2.S. p<. N. N. p<. p<. F=4.01. N.01. N. p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. In Study 1C.021. N. N.S. F=5.041.01 F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N. mixed results were found.S.05. F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S.155.S.01 F=2. N.S.01).567. F=2. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.01). F=1.432. N.
This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. were all supported. were supported.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. 4.Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. respectively. VER and IND subscale scores. H11.1.29). 151 .4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.3 and H11. H10. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.2. However. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. In Studies 1B and 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. freeway urgency. In Study 3. 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. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. however.3 and H11.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. H10. was supported.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.32).4. only H11.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. Therefore. H11. 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. H10. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. The higher the total aggression scores.
Similarly.01 B=.01. p<.520. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.01 B=. B = . but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.881.263.Table 4. 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.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.05 B=. p<.01.05 (see Figure 4. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.216.01.461.01 Study 3 B=.183.324. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.428. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.545.01 B=.505. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.438. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .483. p<. B=. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 respectively. B = . p<.565. p<. B = . p<.01 B=. p<.01.05 B=.S.01. but not in Study 3.5). This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<.229. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.491.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01 B=. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. Study 2 and Study 3.204. Also. p<.121.540. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. respectively. but not in Study 3.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.380. p<. p<.01 and B = . p<. p<. and B = . Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 B=. B = .370.01.048. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. 1C. p<.387. p<. p<. N. F=3. B = .263. However. p<.385. B = . N.01 respectively.S.01 B=. and B = . p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 and B = . p<. p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. 1B.235.370. respectively.
01. p<. In other words. respectively. The moderating effect of I was significant.100. for Study 1B.516. p<.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.297.01.01.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.00 42. and B=-.131.12. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Kurtosis=-. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.6.01.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. p<. R2=. F=100. R2=.003.00 46.271. p<.316. B=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.961.00 44. p<.645. B=-. Kurtosis=-.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. 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. F=81. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .172. Study 1C and Study 3.076.929. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.362. R2=.
369. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.109.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01 and B = . Kurtosis=-. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=. p<. 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). R2=.757. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.088. F=71. p<. p<. Kurtosis=.507. R2=. respectively). R2=.387. p<. p<.431.069. In Study 1B.015.01.01. p<. B = . respectively).606.297.01. R2=. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.117.694. F=94.6.015.360. F=91.704. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.297.271.01 respectively. R2=.01. R2=. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.897. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.12.271.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.794. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.
7). H12. B = .3.302. p<. and H12. p<. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. that the internality. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.significant. Therefore.01 and B = .2.01 respectively. 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.332. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12.1. and the moderation effect was not significant. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. 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. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .
279.05. t(250) = 3. p<. p<. 249) = 5. p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.01. p<.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. Only H12. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.6. p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.314.343. F(2.05). p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.3. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. 156 .737. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.885.1.263. However.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.01). On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. H122 and H12. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. 248) = 3. 249) = 4. 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<. 4. with the sample of taxicab drivers.05.01. t(249)=2. Also. and about revenge F(2. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.01 but not on about the derogation of others.05). There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.
that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. the higher the total HAT scores.6.01 and destination-activity orientation. This means that. p<. was not supported.Therefore. were supported.3. was partially supported.01.224. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.307. H14.413. 157 . B = . B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. was supported. p<. p<. This means that.2. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. respectively.2 and H14.394.01.1 and H13.379. 4. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. H13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. on total BIT score were also tested. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01.3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.277. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. B = . that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.1. (that thoughts about physical aggression.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01. Therefore. p<. p<. freeway urgency. H13.01 and B = . p<. p<.192. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. B = . the higher were total BIT scores. B = . B = . derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.01. externally-focused frustration. p<. H14.364. were supported.
297. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.8). B = .002. p<.565.4. Physical Aggression and Revenge. 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. Kurtosis=.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. p<. 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 4.188.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.297.013. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.809. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .-554. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. R2=. R2=.01.911.01.072). F=57. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. In other words.05. F=55. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.085).6. p<. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.
Aggression was significant. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.092). B = . p<.1 and H15. H15. F=59. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01. was not supported. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.3.475.297. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.2. However. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.294.33). was supported.01. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15. p<.026. 4. Therefore. were supported. B = . p<.6. R2=. Kurtosis=.01. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.207. 159 .246.
1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.3.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2.S P.S N.S N.2.S S S S S S N.S N.S 1C P.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.1.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.S P.S.S N.2.2.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1.S S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S S N.S S S N.S S S N.2.S S S N. S N.S N.S S S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S 3 P.S P.S S S S P.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.2.S N.Table 4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.1.1.S N.S S S N.S P.S N.S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S P.S P.S 160 .1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.1.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.
Table 4.S 161 .S N.S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S= Partially Supported.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S P.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S N.S 1B N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S P.S N.S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.S 3 N.S N. P.S 2 N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.3.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.S N.S S S N.S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N. N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S STUDY 1C N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.33 (Continued) 1A H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S S S S S P.S P.S S N.
S 162 .2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.Table 4.S N.S S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S S S P.S S N.S= Not Supported.S= Partially 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: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S N.S P.S S 2 3 P.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported. P.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.
96 RMSEA . F3. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F3.7. P. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. F2.102 . AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F2. C. Aggression (AQ).1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. e. Table 4.068 .52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. P I. F2. F2. F4 F1. P.g. F3. P. AQ. C. C. BHS I. F2. P. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.00000 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).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. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.90 110.38 100.93 . 2002). HAT Proximal Factors F1. F3 F1. Hopelessness. C.02 d. F2.93 . C. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.80 104.05522 .087 .f. F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2).00126 .97 63.34.060 Note: Internality (I). F4 F1.58 35. F3.00111 .93 . 4. Study 2: motorcycle driver. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. BHS. HAT I. BHS.093 . AQ. AQ I. two were worthy of further examination. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F4 F1. 163 . freeway urgency. C.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).96 . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. AQ. HAT I. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. F4 χ2 49.97 . Hopelessness (BHS).045 . P.00000 .4. F3. Externality Chance (C).00000 . hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.
32. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. .96.=24. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. but not as good as for C5. AGFI=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. values were: NFI=. with path coefficients = -. RMR=. RMR=. .destination-activity orientation (F4).14. . GFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.35.=33.23 respectively (see Figure 4.02. An alternate model. Externality (Chance). Externality (Chance).043.043.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. d. C6. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. For Model C6. . GFI=. with path coefficients = -. d.10). CFI=.5.91. of the BIT score. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.51 and PGFI=.97.3. Externality (Powerful-Other). RMSEA=.98).060.94.28 and .92) on accident involvement. For Model C6.42. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.13. ECVI=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.96.10). To aid this discussion. For Model C5. .26.97. 164 . retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.48. and PGFI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. CFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. 5. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. RMSEA=. Externality (Powerful-Other). For Model C5.29 and .97. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.f.42.045. which are detailed in sect.f.92) on accident involvement. AGFI=. ECVI=. .26.
Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.51* .32* Externality (Chance) .97 d. *p<.57* Injury Occurrence .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ) .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .045 RMR=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.58* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .92* Accident Involvement .79* .99 P-value = . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.97 GFI=.63* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .f =24 CFI=.
50* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.060 RMR=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.39* .56* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.98 P-value = .92* Accident Involvement .63* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.31* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence .29* Aggression (AQ) . *p<.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.77* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.f =33 CFI=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.02 GFI=.96 d.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .
42 61 50 61 61 p-value .66 131.00000 . Angry (ANG). 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). HAT-D. VER.80) on the accident involvement. Aggression (AQ). HOS. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.92 . HAT-P.081 . HAT-D.13 respectively.f. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HAT-D. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). HAT-P.41 d. F2. HAT-P. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F4 F1.91 . HOS. VER.41. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. Verbal aggression (VER). HOS. Hostility (HOS).35).94 169. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. VER. IND.73 169. HOS.In addition. HOS.078. freeway urgency (F2). HAT-R PHY. F3. F2. HAT-R PHY.f. Indirect aggression (IND). Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).66 153.93 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HAT-R PHY. HAT-D.00000 .66). ANG. F4 χ2 108.91.91 .10. GFI=. HAT-P. IND. CFI=. ANG. F2.084 .080 . the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). 167 . IND. F2. ANG.00111 . ANG. RMSEA=.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.00000 .=61.084 . F3. IND PHY. F4 F1. F3 F1.91 . F3 F1. ANG. d.95). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.65 and . IND.00000 GFI RMSEA . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. path coefficients = .
BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* Indirect Aggression .078 RMR=. *p<.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.05 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .29* Hostility .41 GFI=.80* Accident Involvement .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.62* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13* Model Statistics χ2=153.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .61* .65* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 P-value = .66* .83* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.69* Anger .91 d.72* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .58* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .
2 Study 2 In Study 2.66) on the accident involvement. P I.12 d.94.98).12. RMSEA=. F3. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Externality Powerful-Other (P). Hopelessness (BHS).07580 .f. C. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.7.86 23 28 23 .4. Externality Chance (C). GFI=. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. C. 169 . F2. path coefficients = -. P.17631 .94 .=28. freeway urgency (F2).f. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.062 Note: Internality (I). BHS I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.12). BHS F1.65 and . F4 F1. C. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). CFI=.36). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.058 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3 F1.33 33.047 . p-value GFI RMSEA I.95 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. P. the participants were motorcycle drivers. d.94 . F4 39.06722 . Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F3.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. F2. F2.047.
046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.70* BIT4 .88* Crash Occurrence .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.57* Internality -.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . *p<.95 d.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .65* Externality (Chance) .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .047 RMR=.89* .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .78* .83* BIT3 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.f =23 CFI=.99 P-value = .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.12 GFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.
RMSEA=.f.35265 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.079 Injury Occurrence I.=21.7. F3. but not Externality.027 I. CFI=. freeway urgency (F2).82 28 . F3. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.f.061.22 23 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).95.00524 . F4 Crash Occurrence 18.40) on the accident involvement. AQ F1. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.39 21 . the participants were taxi drivers. AQ F1. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. C. F2. F2. Internality and AQ.061 Note: Internality (I).95 .13).59 17 . F3.94 . P. C.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. P Proximal Factors F1. I. Hopelessness (H). C. F4 50. AQ F1. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.3 Study 3 In Study 3.95).97 . F2. F2.03084 .4. Externality Chance (ExC).20 respectively (see Figure 4.06743 . GFI=.20 and . F4 Outcomes χ2 d.37).37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. F3. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P. 37.93 . have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). d. C. path coefficients = -.39. 171 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.
06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.20* Externality (Chance) .f =21 CFI=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .39* Internality -.63* BIT3 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.39 GFI=.61* BIT4 .061 RMR=.74* -.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.95 d.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .95 P-value = .
consistent with path analysis results. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).39). Table 4. Therefore. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.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. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.8.2 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. 173 .8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.38). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. 4. and.8. 4.
behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40). in Studies 1A.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.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).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. 1B and 1C. where the 174 .8. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4. Table 4.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.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 . Table 4. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.
9.01.01. Study 1B vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1C vs. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.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. p <.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).162. 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.Table 4.01.993.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1A vs.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 2: t(372)= -3.663. p <.01.426.665.837.05. Study 1B vs. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 1A vs. p <. 176 . p <. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(422)= -2.01.442. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -4. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <.
402. p <. t(986)= 3. t(986)= 5. Study 2: t(372)= -7.977.01. t(253) = 2. respectively.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. t(986)= 34.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.01. Study 1A vs. p <.01. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 2: t(422)= -6.614. “freeway urgency”. p <. p <. Study 1A vs.01. p <.01. 4. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <.01.01. and t(986)= 35.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.801. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. t(986)= 7. t(986)= 6. Study 1C vs.837.01. t(253)= 8.261. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Study 1B vs.926. t(986)= 37. p <. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(372)= -6.211. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. 177 . Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <.433.9.200. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.687.747.01. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4.861. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Study 1C vs.577. Study 1C vs. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.775. Study 1B vs. p <. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. 4. p <.01. p <. p <.484. Study 2: t(372)= -5. and to injury occurrence.01.9.186. Study 1A vs. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01. Also.704.01. p <.01.
01. t(253)= 11. p <.737. and t(253)= 37.982.881.977. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 31.01. respectively.01. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 8.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <.01and to injury occurrence. t(253)= 39. p <. p <.01.01. t(253)= 35. “freeway urgency”. Also.01. 178 .567.946. p <. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. t(253)= 8.016.
While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger.. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. 1995. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.1). Elander et. 1993. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Often. including gender. 2002b). freeway urgency. Evans. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. al. 2. upon examination. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . road engineers and ergonomists interested in motor vehicle safety have tried for a long time to understand the role played by human factors in determining traffic safety outcomes. In an earlier study. (1993).4.2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. Elander et al. multi-factorial perspective. 1991). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. They found gender.
1991). and did so in all cases but hopelessness. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. But findings were more complex than that. is that factors interact with each other. As a result. the proximal variable. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. In the present research. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. 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. though. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering.total BIT score and component scores. BIT. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. In the contextual mediated model. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. In other words. All too often. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. Further. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. 180 . except with taxicab drivers. hopelessness. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. if different.
… 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
By virtue of their age and occupation. respectively). SD=11.2 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. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.1 months. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . Inclán. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. 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.hierarchy. Because of occupational demands. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. Of course. For taxicab drivers. 5.25 years. They were also more experienced (266. SD=22. SD=.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.53.5. as well. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. there are other possible influences. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.3. respectively).2 years. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. SD=131.01years.16. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. 20.1. In the present study. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. SD=1. and 36. SD=1. For taxicab drivers. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.6 months as licensed drivers.63.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.7 months.
findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. In an environment where career choice. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. influence peddling and status-related privileges. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. The finding that Indian- 188 . 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. financial matters and social affiliations are made. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. along with selfpromotion skills.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). for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. however. corrupt practices. 2003. Devashayam. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. Carment (1974) also found. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. rife with bureaucracy. were necessary to succeed. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. 2005). spousal selection. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. perhaps due as argued earlier. when compared to Canadian students.
2002. 1966. Nandy. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 1999.7 in 1996. where Cheung et al. and. as a group. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. as a result. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and.8 million in 1996. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Again. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Gomez. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1981).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. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. but two possible influences stand out. 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. by extension. including locus of control. 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. an internal locus of control. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.5 million in 1991 to 11.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 5.3. 1998. 1999. Indeed. Sendut. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999). the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.5% annually from 9. Salih &Young.
2000. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Huff. 2001) In the present research. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. by the enraged driver. 2003. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Nonetheless. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Lynch. Lawton & Nutter. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miles & Johnson. bringing them closer together in outlook. with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. Consistently. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 .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. more recently. 2001. 2002. King & Parker. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 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. 2008. Parkinson. Miller & Rodgers. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002). aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 318). Oetting & Salvatore. Dukes. 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.women’s friendship patterns. 5. Clayton. Jenkins.
but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Petrilli et al. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Further.conditions. physical aggression. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. during such incidents. 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. With taxicab drivers. Oetting et al. Underwood et al. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. Deffenbacher. on a journey by journey basis. Parker. Underwood et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. 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. 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”). Finland and the Netherlands. (1996) and Deffenbacher.
1997). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. 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 . Such responses. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). the world and others). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. The effects of aggression on behaviour. although still significantly. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. 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.. 2006).. In essence. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. however. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic.strongly. but not when they involved the derogation of others. 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. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. That is. in the samples studied here. as well. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour.
Generally. but there may be more to it than that. and particularly with negative emotion. 1990. aggressive automobile drivers who believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others. Hochschild. It is moderated by cognitive processes. 2004. Meichenbaum. 1987. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 1979. 401). Novaco. Language loaded with emotional content. like any other mental task. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. true to operant learning principles. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein.are determined by chance or fate. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. “in ergonomics. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”).. p. 1977). 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. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Certainly. Finally. Downe & Loke. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1994. Similarly. 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. 193 .e.. or self-talk.e. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1995. (2003).
5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Hinojosa. 2002. In fact. 1997). 2005). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. 1993). Trabasso & Liwag. Martin. MartinLoeches. Performance (e.5. Dien. 1999. 5. Carretie. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.g. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Taylor & Fragopanagos. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 2000. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Stein. 2004.Robbins. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Mercado & Tapia. Watson & Wan. p.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. and attempting to exercise control over.. Lambie & Marcel. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Tomkins. 162). 2002. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. 1996. 2000. hostile automatic thoughts. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Making sense of. aggressive emotionality. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.
2000). or latent. including dependent and independent variables. By estimating and removing measurement error. a multivariate technique. 1998). leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. or dependent. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. Second.. When composing a model. According to Williams.. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. or independent variables.. In addition. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. 2006). 2006). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. 2006). and perhaps most important. 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. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. involved in the analysis. Finally. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. explain criterion. 195 . similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. 2004. Karl Jöreskog. EQS and AMOS. Gavin and Hartman (2004). factors represented by multiple variables. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. 2004. who in 1970.434). Hair et al. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. p. Structural equation modelling (SEM). First.
TLI. In the present research. (2004) noted that.e. as suggested by Hair et al. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Sümer (2003) added that. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models.e. CFI. and the root mean square residual were included. 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. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Hair et al. SRMR.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. the comparative fit index (CFI). (2006).5.5. Ketchen. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2004) has been critical of most studies. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. Williams et al. Shook. etc) 196 . It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement 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. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. Shook et al. Therefore. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. GFI. when assessing the fits of measurement models. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI.
It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2006). Structural equation modelling should.. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 .g. Fit index values (e.. 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. RMSEA lower than .3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. CFI and CFI) greater than . so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. CFI. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. At the same time. 2000).. we would argue. 1998. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 1998). provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.In the present research. Hair et al. GFI.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. As a general rule. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 5. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. significant p-values can be expected. 2001. Maruyama. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.5. It is argued here that. Sambasivan & Ismail. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. Md-Sidin. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2006. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.90. 2001.
7. There is some support for this position in the literature. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.soundness. 88). Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. stating that. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. In the case at hand. as suggested by Byrne (2001). it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research.1. destination-activity orientation. “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. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. More importantly. statistical. In some cases. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. 158).10) excluded the fourth factor. 1C5 and 1C6. 4. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. However. and practical considerations (p. two structural equation models.3). If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. Thus. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.
F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.48 30. AQ.Table 5. Injury Occurrence 35. 199 .94 0.42 11.02 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. F2. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. C.96 1. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.99 0. F2. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.043 129.97 0.91 0. C.034 97.045 0. AQ.96 0.98 0.909 0.97 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. P. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 0.060 0.499 0.97 1. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. P.97 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. 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.
Sambasivan (2008) stated that. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. while for Model 1C6. Manstead & Stradling. in particular. Kayumov. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. goodness-of-fit. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Hair et al. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.. et al. Storey. Parker. 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. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. they should be dropped. Nahn & Shapiro. 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. 1990. By selecting Model 1C5. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. but still acceptable. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. For practical reasons. 2006). the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. in this analysis. 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. 1995. 2006. it is 0. Reason.48. 1996). based on the notion that each variable included may. farther along. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason.1).It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection.42. However.
with five distal factors (internality. 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.26. for automobile drivers sampled. externality-powerful other. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2001. externally-focused frustration.14.1 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.35 and . As observed from the investigation of structural paths. Sümer. externalitychance.5.66). crash occurrence (r = -. . indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.45). externality-powerful other.6.g. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . via BIT.5.28 and . . externality-chance.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.34) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . Rothengatter. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. aggression. Evans. In Study 1C. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.28 respectively). 1991. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.1).35. 2003). .29). The results suggested that the alternative model. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.5. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . and hostile automatic thoughts). on crash outcomes.21).
and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.25).55).23) and injury occurrence (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. Results indicated that the first alternative model.5. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.20) and injury occurrence (r = . 202 . crash occurrence (r = . externality-chance. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). had a better fit than other alternative models. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . freeway urgency.41). and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. 5. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. which sampled motorcyclists. crash occurrence (r = . Aggression. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. on the other hand. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.65 and . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. 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. freeway urgency.24).4. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.
externality-powerful other and aggression). externally-focused frustration. aggression). The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. 4. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. to measure outcome. freeway urgency. crash occurrence. externality-chance. their crash occurrence. 5. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.5. such as internality. for the sample of taxicab drivers. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. 203 .5. Results indicated that the third alternative model. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. externality-powerful other. externality-chance.20 and .3). hopelessness.4. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. However. Finally. via BIT. for crash outcomes. For motorcyclists. in turn and indirectly. freeway urgency. with the sample of taxicab drivers.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. had a better fit than alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. as a result. had no significant effect on BIT scores. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.6.5. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. Distal factors. with four distal factors (internality.
To a large extent. Sekaran (2003) points out.6 5. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. however. 2005). In the present research. Further. 278279). 2004). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6. 204 . Huguenin. 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. chosen at random from taxi stands. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. 2005. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. a total of five samples were taken. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 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.5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.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. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.
as elsewhere. The most populous state. Study 1C: 99. Selangor. 205 .2%). in Malaysia. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.2).In Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Study 1B: 100%. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.13 years (SD = 1. Table 5. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Sabah. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.55).31. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.6% (Study 1A: 99. with a mean age of 20. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.2% and Study 2: 99. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. 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. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. Since.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.6%. during the interval from 2000 to 2003.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.
9 (3) 2.6 5.000 1.2 7.000 215.8 (6) 6.396.807 733.6 (10) 7.887.150.Table 5.387.7 (14) But.9 (9) 7.5 (8) 3.2 (1) 3.000 1.0 12.8 6. 206 . 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.0 4.300.818. Table 5.6 0.500. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.6 2.000 2.5 (4) 4.2 (5) 0. For that reason.286 1.100.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.2 (11) 12.260.576 2.500 1.200.7 (2) 2.2 3. in this case. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.9 9.4 5. Table 5.000 2.880 3.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.1 (7) 8.3 (12) 11.674 1. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.004.6 6.2 11.2 (13) 11.0 8.188 1.503.000 3.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Selangor Sabah Johor Sarawak Perak Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Kedah Penang Pahang Terengganu Negeri Sembilan Malacca Perlis State Population (approx) 7. Not all states have the same number of drivers. In both cases.000 Per cent of national population 26. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.
97 12.93 9.104 6.34 3.467 25.68 7.98 0.96 3.170 13.55 7.88 2.16 2.89 3.428.34 11.76 3.46 8.85 1.19 7.70 3.19 3.35 4.36 8.05 2.920 181.041 92.768 6.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.561 1.735 165.50 29.026 10.4 4.84 11.198 156.27 14.91 2.13 6.22 17.137 698.24 2.064 9.606 24.212 39.37 3.93 0.163 10.63 207 .75 4.19 4.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.90 5.92 25.70 12.617 10.635 1.230 266.785 393.496 187.20 12.029 273.093 5.251 324.24 0.45 9.774 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 12.88 3.28 3.Table 5.600 135.144 12.725 70.588.490 525.43 2.003 10.
48 1.76 3.98 0.82 9.59 1.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.02 10.28 3.15 5.59 12.22 3.02 7.617 10.93 9.33 4.43 2.995 233.606 24.45 2.144 12.768 6.029 273.38 4.Table 5.20 15.49 12.63 11.75 5.288 444.615.64 1.88 2.79 13.66 11.992 776.656 821.722 255.467 25.112 347.46 5.305 276.36 8.133 705.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.003 10.35 4.856 310.221 36.10 9.49 0.958 % 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 12.725 70.64 2.38 0.63 13.989 6.170 13.46 14.14 7.679 90.27 14.212 39.727 161.93 7.283 770.88 3.026 10.92 25.03 4.561 1.74 208 .37 3.104 6.4 4.064 9.
Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . 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. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. at least.824** .4.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. At least on these dimensions. Of course.Table 5. participants came from – or.3 and 5. it is possible to say that sampling.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.903** . Table 5.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .814** 1 . was representative of a high risk driver population. it can be argued that they were.
the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Hatakka. unless the variation within the group is very small. However. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). in studying driving behaviour. as in other psychological research. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . 5. Exposure. e. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Rothengatter. accident distributions by age. accidents. Keskinen. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter.g. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Elander et al. violations and accidents should be linked together.6.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. The problem. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. 1998. 1998. demographic factors. Much important data is available in official statistics. 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. attitudinal factors. 296). Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. the data has to be disaggregated. Again. however. 2001). 1979)..
self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. 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. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. In future studies. blood pressure. the longer the time period for data collection. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. Visser and Denis (2004). combined interview and observational methods. the more information is lost through memory lapses. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.g. as in a study reported by Chalmé. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. 211 . The assumption. 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. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. though. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. 13). In the present research. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus.g.. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. 5. in studies of driving behaviour. 1996). therefore. for instance. Particularly. as well. 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.6. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.. muscle tension. Yet. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.
there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 2002). 1971). 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. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated.6. individual standard. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. First. Unfortunately. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 1997. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . and the hypothesis (H2. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 5. Second. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion.In the present research. 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. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Mercer. as well. 1999).
but because they are inherently easier to think about. 181). 2002). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. But. because they have taken place recently. 1973. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 2003. in other words.. 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. Wood & Boyd. 2004). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. but not always. eventful or recent. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. frequency or distribution in the world (p. 213 . although this has not been firmly established. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 2008). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. Slovic & Tversky. 121). 1974). p. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 2003).frequency that were used in this research. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. In much the same way. 1993). as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. Specifically. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. Kahneman. Some of the inaccuracy in the use of distance travelled as a driving frequency measure can be simply attributed to random or systematic errors in prediction (Elander et al. 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. Often. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 1993. 1982).
in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. on one hand. Of course. with adequate street lighting and hevily-enforced speed limits is not the same as driving the same 30 kilometres at night on a remote expressway at higher speeds. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. where driving histories generally include lengthy. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. (2003). traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. Similarly.. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. 2001) . it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . Sansone. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. for example. 1991). emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. 2000). asked participants to record the time of day. Finally. Deffenbacher et al. road conditions. in their studies of roadway aggression. 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. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. but training participants in standardised record-keeping.In the Malaysian environment. during periods of low traffic volume.
It was felt.. 2004). 1991). 1994).7 5. 1985. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . Further research is required. are testable and contain no contradictions. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 2005). but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge.studies undertaken. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. have high information content. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 2004). but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. Ranney. In the present research. 5. during the study design process.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 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. 1997). 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. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. Summala.g. selfreported measure used here. Michon. 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. 2005).7. In addition. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. To summarise. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Good theories are simple.
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. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . if they are modest in ambition. at times. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. stating that. 94). Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. in particular to structure data. 294). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. 1997.patterns of relationships. or represent processes. Hauer (1987). create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. The answer to this question is possibly yes. The answer is probably not. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. 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”. often in graphical form (Grayson. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. p. check facts. on the other hand. 32). there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose.
1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. In 217 . In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.3). who argued that. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 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. hopelessness. and if they are resultscentred (pp. 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. 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. 2. 95-96). In this case. 304). This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. for instance. Yet. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans.
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 5. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. With several exceptions. as defined by Grayson (1997). 2. 2003). the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk.. crash-free driving.4). sensation seeking (Sümer.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).7. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. while still very much a model and not a theory. anxiety. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. psychoticism. 2005) were included as distal variables. for instance. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. extraversion. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. openness. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. not on everyday driving. While the present research 218 . and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. According to Ranney (1994).other studies. depression. conscientiousness. The contextual mediated framework.3. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. Kerlinger (2000) and others. much current research. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.
Following this reasoning. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. individuals viewing themselves as being responsible for both positive and negative driving outcomes will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing seat belts and being vigilant to roadway cures. They argued that locus of control. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. 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. 219 . On the other hand. no matter how reliable a safety device. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. or at least to react more slowly. Conversely.did not test any of those theories specifically. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. Within their proposed conceptual framework. 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. As a result.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde.3 Driver Selection. 220 . once identified. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 2005. 5. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 1996).7.. Gidron & Davidson. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality.In the present research. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. 1997. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. 2002. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. 1982). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. al. Typically. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. 2004). Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. 1996). which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Summala. task capability (Fuller. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. though. scarce resources for screening drivers. could be screened out. Christ et al. Specifically. external locus of control and hostile attributions.
1961.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. teams of humans. 1957). and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 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. for the last fifty years.7. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. or legal intervention. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. and machines are highly intricate (p. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. World Health Organisation. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).4). From this has emerged the growing 221 .7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 5. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.7. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Unlike 100 years ago. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. education. 1957.4. Slinn.5. At the same time. 1).4.
or the adaptive automation concept. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. At the same time. Maggio & Jin. reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. 222 . depending on environmental factors. Stough. 2005). with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). 2001). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. These have been applied to in-car. (Bishop.6). operator workload and performance (Inagaki. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe.6). as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. for instance. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. Suda & Ono. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. 2001). Murazami. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Sadano. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2003). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. In the case of LKA.
1998). 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 particular to pursue environmental. 2000). Tassinary. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Black. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. traffic 223 . changes in traffic speed. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 2004. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Richardson & Downe. Herzog. 1993. Brown & Noy. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Parsons. Ulrich. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). 1997). Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. was associated crash outcomes.6). 2003. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 1999. Fountaine and Knotts.
1996. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. 1992). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). however. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 309). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. inexperienced drivers. and whether this information varies according to the situation. questions of alternative urban structure. p. 224 . however. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Proctor. journey purpose or other human factors.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Dietze. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 1991). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. 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. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 1996. Probably.
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. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.Table 5. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. departure warning. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. and likelihood of. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. – 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. Hi H 1. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. lane road conditions. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. etc. 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. “rumble strips” in expressways.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. 225 .6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. transitions for. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. infrastructure. keeping.1. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations.
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”. are travelling. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. t-junctions and vehicle displays to warn the feedback to the driver when pedestrian crossings that will speeding driver of impending that speed is being exceeded trigger high-illumination intersections. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. including those in adjoining lanes. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. to in-vehicle display terminals. the host vehicle. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. Radar. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.(continued) H 1.1. 226 . H 1.. ACC systems provide modifications.1. the systems intersection modification.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. generally pilot”. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. point. than the safety standard. traffic lights) safe.
humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. Such devices include chicanes. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.3 vertical displacement. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. 227 . horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. H 1. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity.1. “Speed tables”.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. signs with calming or vehicles. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. environment and other frustrating stimuli.
safety messages. 228 .(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.1. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.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. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. notification of construction ahead. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. This information allows drivers to avoid or. weather-related road conditions. H 1. at least.
This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.4. to some extent. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. teachers or the police. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. like community centres or places of worship.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). 73). publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. 229 . to inadequacies in driver training and testing. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. however. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. It suggests that.7. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.5. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. 2001). (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. The present research suggests that.
that “Of these three approaches. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The bias of false consensus. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns.5.7. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.4. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. or an internal locus of control. 2007. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. They also stated. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. 265). evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. p. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. however.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. 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. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Second. p. such as visibility of enforcement. was studied in a 230 . Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. N6). Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. from the findings of the present research. 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. 1030). one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. First. legal measures change least often.
498). Stradling. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 2001. Parker. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. By doing so. 1992). 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.sample of drivers by Manstead. Azjen & Fishbein. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 1991. The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Ajzen. Reason & Baxter. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . on the other. is allowed to occur in a Just World. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). after all. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws.
drivers’ decisions to adhere. or not adhere. to traffic regulations. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. Similarly. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. 232 . it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
was used to frame the relationship between these human factors.. Wállen Warner & Åberg.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. age. In doing so. Iverson & Rundmo.g. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. locus of control. Sümer et al. Sümer. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. A contextual mediated model. it was concluded that driver experience.. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. It is concluded here that the contextual mediated model is useful in conceptualising and testing driving behaviour and its outcomes and that further research incorporating other variables at both the distal and proximal level should be carried out. 2003. Results have indicated that. In the present research. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. ethnicity. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). as proximal to the crash outcomes. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. 2005. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. hopelessness. when risky. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. 233 . as expected. gender. 2002.
The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1995.. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. However. as well as statistical grounds. 1982). Hoyt. Montag & Comrey. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. task capability (Fuller. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. or external locus of control. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1987). Harrell. the best fit usually implies the best model. 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. Further. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. 1973). 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. In the present research. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. In most cases. like Brown and Noy (2004).. it is argued here. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. 2003). This is Of the variables studied. 1974). 1986. and accident risk (e.g.In the current literature. 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.
. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.aggression were observed. 1998. road engineering and ergonomics. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. in combination. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. For example. 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. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables.g. Groeger & Rothengatter. However. they 235 . Several authors (e. cultural anthropology. Huguenin. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. Rothengatter. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). as well. 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. 2005. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors.
313). In the present research. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. 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. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. Indeed. educational and enforcement spheres.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 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. management. 236 . injuries and death. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. Through a multi-disciplinary approach.
581-587. A. H. 35.  Ahmad Hariza.  Abdul Kareem. Puzzles & Irritations. L. and Anurag.A.H. T. 10(2). Journal of Safety Research. Subramaniam. 1867-1874. 5.  Abdullah.S. S.H. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists.E.  af Wählberg.. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. K. and Law.E. P. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. (2005). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Petaling Jaya.T. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. MY: Pearson. and Kulanthayan. Third edition.  Aiken. 38(5).R. (1999). and Pederson. (2003). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. 289-296. 31-39.. Mohd Zulkifli.  Abdul Rahman. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC).REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. 169-177. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Musa. R. M. P. (2003). (2002). Bahrain.B.. (2007). A.  Adolphs.. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.  Åberg. 237 . 12. N. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Drinking and driving: intention.  af Wählberg. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. individual crash level approach. (1993). attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Crash data analysis: collective vs. A. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. R. A. (2002). Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.. 25. 473-486. (1979). Psychological Testing and Assessment. (2003). Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. L. Mohd Nasir. Radin Umar.
(1987). S. 179-211. M. In Kuhl.J. Day. 22(3). (2003). 50(2). 238 .  Ajzen. S. T. Journal of Sleep Research. and Kecklund (2001). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. J. Annual Review of Psychology.C. (1997).E. 404-415. W. Biometrics.) European Review of Social Psychology. 10(6). E. 47. Nature and operation of attitudes. Ajzen. In Stroebe. 7.  Archer. I. and Kerrich. (2001).  Ajzen. M.T. W. J. London: John Wiley & Sons. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. Age. 340-342. Edwards. and Hewston.  Armstrong. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. (2001).G. (2004). Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. M. Human Factors. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Learning.. 10. and Tubré. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. and Haigh. and Beckmann.  Åkerstedt. 23. (1991). (2005).) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. The theory of planned behaviour.105-110. I. and Fishbein. A. Personality. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study.  Armitage. A.  Ajzen. Tubré.J. I. I. 303-313. (Eds. A. and Christian. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. B. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. gender and early morning accidents. Bell. J. 291-307. 52.. Current Psychology: Developmental.  Arbous. Social. 623-633. (1985). (1952).H.D.  Amin. J. (Eds.. 187-195. 27-58. Aggressive Behavior.  Arthur. J.A. Women’s Studies International Forum. 33(3). T. C.
-E.31-42. (1997). P.L.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. R. October 18).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. K. (2002). In Barjonet. and Tortosa. Manila: Philippines. 89-105. W. 4(2). D. and Kenny. Human Performance. Wilde.C. (1986). and Dischinger. (2002). When hope becomes hopelessness. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.-E. 239 .  Aylott.M. Arthur. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. 279-284.A. M. 231-234. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Boston: Kluwer. 1173-1182.  Baron. S. 14-29). (Eds. R. F.F. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. and Carson. 34.V. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. GJ. (1994). European Journal of Oncology Nursing.  Austin. Retrieved April 4. and Carbonell Vaya E.  Aschenbrenner.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. and Tortosa. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).D.  Barjonet..  Barjonet.  Ballesteros. (Eds. and Biehl. (2001). (1991). Barrett. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. NL: Styx. 2007 from http://www. 51(6).. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. and Alexander. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers.A. P. In Rothengatter.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. (1998). 34. R. F. B. (2005. 2(4). P. In Trimpop. M. (Ed.S. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 21-30).M. P-E. G.bakrimusa. Groningen.M. J.  Asian Development Bank (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R..  Bakri Musa. strategic and statistical considerations. T. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.
A. and Loftus. Lester.  Beck.E.C.  Beck. (1993).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. and Simons-Morton (2002).. (1987a). Journal of the American Medical Association. In Rubin. K.T. Weissman. R.  Beck. In Zeig. A. 5-37. L.C.J. D. Health Education and Behavior.  Beck.. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. 234(11). Cognitive therapy. Hostility and Violence. 157-179).K. 149-178).G.  Beck. D. 588-606. A.T. (1996). E. (1976). Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.  Benzein.H.M. New York: Brunner/Mazel. A. and Mills.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.G. 19. H. (2005). Psychological Bulletin. (1975).T. 73-84. and Steer.T. A.. 29(1). 1(1). R. (Eds.A. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. and Bonnett. Palliative Medicine.T. and Trexler. (1987b).. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hartos. In (Flinders. G. A. Cognitive models of depression. 88. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.. (Ed. A.F. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 240 . Theory: the necessary evil. M. J. The level of and relation between hope. Beck. and Weissman. 218-229). Kovacs. (1993).  Beck. (1980). 42  Becker. (Ed. D.T.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp.S. D. E.  Bentler. (pp. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. (1974). 234-240.  Beck. (1999). J.F. A. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.  Belli. New York: Teachers College Press. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. 1146-1149. P. and Berg.T. A. New York: Meridian. A.
H.B. 38(3).  Blumenthal. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. Psychological Bulletin.  Boff. K.. Graziano.  Blacker. T. (2002).  Bettencourt. and Valentine. M.A. 241 . March 12). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 95-104. and Bonino. Psychology and road safety. (1994). Malaysian National News Agency.my/bernama/v3/printable. 751-777.S. Stress and Coping. Applied Psychology: An International Review. B. E. (1984). (2006). A. R. R. 39-55. 37. Talley.bernama. 313-322. (1981). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality Assessment..J. Ben-Zur. J. Retrieved March 30. Anxiety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.E. Managing the high costs of road deaths. 37-40. 472-481  Binzer. New York: McGraw Hill. and Haney. 34(1). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. and Geller.  Boyce. Benjamin. 391-399.  Bridger.. 43. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. M. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.  Bernama. Accident analysis and Prevention.D. R. New York: Routledge. (2006. 132(5). Introduction to Ergonomics.S.php?id=185148.A. (2001).. 15(1). (1995). 2007 from http://www. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. F. T.com. 44-51. 53. and Shimmin. Applied Ergonomics.. (2006). S. S.  Bina. D. 45(1).C. Applying Psychology in Organizations. A.  Blasco. F. McKee. J. Williams.
W.  Browne. (2002).  Brown.W.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions.  Brindle. Political Geography.C.K. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. 27(3). I. (1992). 345-352. and Warren. 29-38  Brodsky. W. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 318-330..S. 219-241. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 4(4). (1982).C. W. T. 641-649. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. (1997). Journal of Applied Psychology. and Huguenin. 21.  Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. (2005). (2004). observational data and driver records. E. G.  Bunnell. (Eds. Accident Analysis and Prevention. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. C. Amsterdam: Pergamon. P. C. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 24. Levine.M. 445-455. Goldzweig. T. 105-124. International Journal of Educational Development.D.S. N. Briggs. (Eds.C. R. Schlundt. (2000).E. and Carbonell Vaya. 14. 32(1).J.  Burns. M. R. 37(4). 20-23.P.  Brown. and Noy. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control.. I. (1989). Personality and Individual Differences. In Rothengatter.  Brown. 242 . I. 267-278. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Ergonomics. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier. D. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research. and Wilde. R. I. 24(1). (1995). 18(2).E. and Ghiselli.  Brown.D. Haliburton. R. E.D. In Rothengatter. 9-19).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (1948). and Cudeck.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2007). T.G.
Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. Buss. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. J. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL.  Byrne.L. Applications and Programming. A.  Byrne.  Byrd. (Eds.  Carmines. J. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.W. International Journal of Psychology.  Cackowski. Human Brain Mapping. Ergonomics.J.P. 63-65. Environment and Behaviour. and Borgatta. 65-115). B. Hinojosa. E. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. T. J. Oxford: Elsevier Science. D. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.M. (1998). Journal of Consulting Psychology. and Kline. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. (Eds).  Carment. and Tapia.  Carsten. J.W. O. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Martin-Loeches. and Durkee. (2004). In Bohrnstedt. E. F. and Nasar. (1957). (1974).D.A.F.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. (1999). 45-50. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Buss. 290-299.  Caird. 22. 15981613. 343-349. T. Cohn. A.. (2001). In Fuller.A. B.L. 9. (2000). 35(6).H. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. (2003). 736-751.G. 21. 31. M. (1981). L. R. A. E. G. Parada... Mercado. M. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates...  Carretie. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.H. and Cortes. (2002). & Santos. and Warren. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. 47(15). Multiple perspectives. Gonzalez.. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. M.K. W. Applications and Programming. L.. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. J. (2004). and McIver. 243 .
 Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Sunway Campus.D. and Lim. Retrieved October 15.  Cheung. The Star. and Denis.0.H. Y. S.-L.-H. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. 467-477. T. Taiwan.  Chalmé. and Huguenin. 557-562. (1985). 41. W. In Rothengatter. and Yeh. M. (2000). (2006). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.F.ghipr.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.W. Retrieved March 31. N6. Matto Grosso do Sul. (2007). D. Monash University. November).M. Carver. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Brazil. (2007.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age.-H. Howard. H.ictct. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.pdf 244 . What are we allowed to ask. Visser. March 20-22. November 12). Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. (1996). 10(2).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Nash.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. 2008 from http://www. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.. J.  Chaplin.  Cheah. R. 61-71). Malaysia. Campo Grande. R. S. Cheung. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. New York: Dell. Driving: through the eyes of teens.P. 109-122. (2004). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.. Personality and Individual Difference. (Eds. R. 21(4). Dictionary of Psychology. 2007 from http:www. R.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). P. Kuala Lumpur. F.G. J.  Chang. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T..
Demakakos. P. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. French. M. E. W. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. 255-274). Lamsudin. Personality traits and the development of depression. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes..) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.C.. T. C.G. and Chan.makeroadssafe.  Chipman. H. A. and Darviri. S.  Christ.  Clarke. G. V. Ward. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.. 193-200. (1996). Smiley. and Lee-Gosselin.  Christie. C.  Chung. (2002). Bakou. In Rothengatter. N. P. Helmets. Tzamalouka. M. P. and Bukasa. )2007).. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.pdf  Conrad. Personality and Individual Differences. Safety at work. 377-390). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Journal of Safety Research.. S.’ Injury Prevention. In Chmiel. N. (2005).  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Y.E. M.S. 39.. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 38(6). A.. B. (1999). 24(2). 679-684.. R. Cancer Nursing.. Bradshaw. E. D.K.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. 22(3).M. 13(2).L. and Costello. and Stiles. T. and Ward. 974-981. Koumaki. and Truman. MacGregor. Cairns. P. 2007 from http://www.D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 1283-1289. and Huguenin.D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. Time vs. C. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Panosch. 431-443.. 196-203. Kasniyah. Towner. 125-129. Bartle.. (2007). 245 . (2004).. Retrieved December 7. Accident Analysis & Prevention. J. June).. (2000). R. (Ed.P.T. hopelessness and suicide ideation. (Eds.  Chliaoutaks. Chioqueta. N. 33. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. R. 28(2).. C.  Chmiel. (1992).
p.  Cresswell.  Crittendon. L.  Crombag. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. (2005). 45-62.asp?id-7003. (1991). Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes.L. (1995).thestar. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. In Fuller. (1962). Journal of Personality Assessment. W. 21-50. and Patel. Mental workload.D. Cooke. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. and Huguenin. and van Koppen. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. American Psychologist.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (1996). [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. and Froggatt. Amsterdam: Elsevier. February 8). R. N48  de Raedt.M. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). October 18). Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Cozan.  Davin Arul (2005. Wagenaar. J. P. 20(5).M.R. F.S.T. 263. In Rothengatter.. 16(5). 5(1). R. D. W. 10. and Durso.J.  Costa. (2002). 161-175). 98-117. Accident proneness. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. and McRae.  Davies.A. 2007 from http://blog. Retrieved April 5. 95-104. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 64. R.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers.W. (2006. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. K. 10.com. The Star. G. (Eds. T. (1961). H.J.my/permalink.  de Waard. R. D. and Santos. N.F. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.A. 152-171. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. P. 246 . P. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
(Eds. M. (1999). C. R. and Morris.S. 34.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.D. 161-171).S.R. (2003). and Olson. 111-142). E. (2002b). Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. R. 28. Filetti. In Rothengatter. (Eds. E. L. T.. Cognitive Therapy and Research.B. and Olson. R. 27(4). Oetting. (2000). and Brookhuis. (1996). Tucson. E.  Deffenbacher.  Devashayam.  Deffenbacher.E.. Ergonomics. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.D.F. Journal of Counseling Psychology. J. J. de Waard.  Dewar.. Personality and Individual Differences. J.. and Swaim.  Deffenbacher. S. 14(12). D.S. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. (1998).S. Individual differences. In Dewar. Richards. (2002a).L. Lynch. J. R. 333-356.R.R. 5-17.  Deffenbacher.L. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.  Dewar. R. Petrilli. and Oetting.E. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. (2004). T.L. 383-402. (Eds. (2003). Women’s Studies International Forum. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.T. R.L.L. and Meyer.W. Huff. Tucson.E. T.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. The expression of anger and its consequences.  Delhomme. (2005). Lynch. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.. 209-233). Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1-20.. Oetting. P. P.  Dien. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.. In Dewar. Age differences – drivers old and young.L. P. 26(1). Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. 247 . K. On the measurement of driver mental workload.C. and Carbonell Vaya. E. 729-730. N. R. 41. 47.R. T.L. E. R.. (1997). 373-393. 123132. Lynch. E.. R. and Ameratunga. Oetting. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. J.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. S. 575-590. Lynch.A.N. 50(2).  Dharmaratne. and Salvatore. R.
G. and Carbonell Vaya. R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 53. (1997). (2003). S.L. Women drivers’ behaviour.a. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Powers. Asian Institute of Medicine.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Health Education Research. Dietze. Social Science Journal 38.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. 525-535. S. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. M. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. 33.. T. (2003). Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. Science & Technology.  Dodge. 278-285). Ball.. Lippold.. T. (2004. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. A. Ebersbach. 197208. W. (2001). J. and Rodgers. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. December). Bahar.. J.R. A.  Dukes. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.P. H. 1146-1158. and Coie. 323-331. R. C. Mohd Yusuff. T.S. N..L.  Draskóczy. 85-92). In Khalid. S. Nigeria. 31. C. Lim.D. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. In Dorn. E. C. ‘Fatalism’. Jenkins. M. negative emotional and risky driving. and Mayser. (Ed.  Dixey. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. D. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. November). Malaysia. L. (1999).A.  Dula. (1987).Y. R. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. M. K.  Downe.G. In Rothengatter. (Eds. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.E. and Che Doi. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and McFadden. Knowledge transfer. Sungai Petani. Clayton.T. Miller.. M. 223-231). Brown.E. 263282..  Downe. A. and Loke. J.  Dobson.A. (1999). and Ballard.. 14(2).. L..M. (2007.. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences.L. 248 . (Eds. Kedah.
) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 69. 22(4). Leadership and Organizational Development. 201-22. West. Dumais. (2005). March 20-22. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. (1962). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.  Elander. 4(3). Brno.L. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.. (1984).B. 279-294. (Ed. C. C.D.  Elvik..L.  Dunbar. 50(13). 17-26).M.R. Journal of Transport Geography. A.(Ed.  Edwards.  Elangovan. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. Chawky. 113. 249 . G. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. (1971). (2002). and Turecki. G. Ménard-Buteau. Kim. New York: Academic. Boyer. Lalovic. satisfaction and commitment. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. N. 74.. A. In Underwood. A. 771-782. (1968). H. 209-306). Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. Czech Republic. 159165. R. Annals of Internal Medicine... (1993). Causal ordering of stress. J. (1996). G.. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. (2005). 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. J. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.pdf  Engel. and French D. Retrieved December 25.. A. Annals of Internal Medicine. J. Psychological Bulletin. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress.  Ellis. (2001). R. G. 838-844. A. G. Lesage.  Engel. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. In Lefcourt. R. 2007 from www.A. 293-300. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.ictct..
L. W. 86(6). E.  Ey. M.. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.  Evans. 16. London: Medical Research Council. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.. (1929). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. N22. p.  Evans.  Evans. and Popovich. S. 84).G. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. American Journal of Public Health. E. London: Medical Research Council.M. (2000). E.. L. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.J. E. Patterson.  Farmer.G. New York: McGraw Hill. 421-435. (1986).  Farran. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. and Chambers. (1996).G. L.. E. 19-36. G. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. L. 23(5).M. (1976).S. (1995). and Chambers. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 250 . L.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. B. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. (1991). 6(1). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. J. E. K. and Chambers. (1926). S.A. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.6bil losses yearly. C. December 10). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.000 and RM5.  Ferguson. Evans. Hadley.A.  Farmer. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. 784-786. Herth. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (1984). London: Medical Research Council. and Alpert. 55).  Farmer. Barnard. The Star. (1939). 38). 81-94. Risk Analysis.M. Klesges.
A.  Fishbein. R. Women and traffic accidents. 207-213.T. New York: Knopf.  Forward. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. and McCartt. 251 . Recherche Transports Sécurité. (2002). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology.  Firestone.  Frazier.E. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 289-298. Belief. S. Journal of Safety Research 38. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. (2005). R. 47-55.A.H.. and Järmark. E. 412-426. B. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. In Fuller. (1986). (1974). and Seiden. I. Linderholm. 38(5). and Santos. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. S.. (1990). consequences and considerations. S. 66.  Fontaine. R. and Ajzen. Intention and Behavior. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. and Rosenman. I. (2006).P. (2007).W. 137-145. R. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. S. R. (2004). P. (2000). Journal of American College Health.  Fuller. August). M. P.  Forward.  Finn. (1998. causes. Accident analysis and Prevention. K. 9. A. R. (2005). 115-134. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. J.R. and Richardson. Attitude. Human factors and driving.  Fuller. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Tix.A. S. 51(1). 12(4). 63-77.18(4). R. (1975).W. and Barron.  Friedman. H. 37. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.  Fuller.. San Francisco. Cross Cultural Management. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. R. and Bragg. Ferguson. 77-97). A. Teoh. Malays and Indians compared. 461-472.
B. G. (1977). Y. Fuller. (2006). (1997). T. In Rothengatter. and Syna Desevilya. (Eds. C.A. McHugh. 1233-1248. Y.E.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Hyder. 13-21. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Hillsdale. (2006). 16(5).A. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  Gidron.T. (1999). Amsterdam: Pergamon.  Grayson. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. L. D. 58(1). (1999).  Ghazali. J. R. (1996). Journal of Applied Psychology.S. and Blanchard.S. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. rights and redistribution in Malaysia.  Ghiselli. 93-96). and Mahbob. European Journal of Public Health. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Gidron. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison.. Petaling Jaya. E. 109-116. Malta.E. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. 167-202). C. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. 109-128. Rajasingham-Senanayake. E.D.  Galovski. Stress and Coronary Disease. 252 . 42(9). S. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. 6.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. N. 487-491. Gal.B. and Brown. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. (2003). Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. E. A. 12(4). (2008)..) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Behavior Paterns. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. E. D..W.C. Aggressive Driver.  Gomez.  Graham. Nandy. and Carbonell Vaya. N. K. MY: Sage. Ergonomics. E.  Glass.T. 203-220. and Pender. A. 33(6). 540-546. E.. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. (Eds. A. R. Mutu. and Davidson. T. and Gomez. H. (2006). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.. (1949).  Garg. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 19.
 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.
377-383. Lawton. H. (1989).M. H. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malay dominance and opposition politics.M.K. Journal of Social Psychology.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.  Levenson. 38. H. C. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 37. A. and Nutter. 41. Dutton. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. (1973). The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. (2002). 93. 262 . 397-401.A.  Lee. Billittier. and Stiller. Journal of Personality Assessment. H.M..V. G. 303-304.C. 479-490.  LeShan. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Leech. Moscati.B. A. 3. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. 2nd Edition. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Barrett. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. N. Janssen.L.  Lenior. H. R. New York: Academic. and Morgan. (1975). Conner. H.407-423.  Levenson. In Lefcourt. D.. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 177-196. IV. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 97. (2002). D.M.M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. K. L. G. 659-662.  Levenson. (1976). Jehle. H. W.  Lefcourt.  Lefcourt.  Lerner. (1974).. Cancer as a turning point. (2001). pp. Applied Ergonomics. (Ed. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.G.J.P.. Mahwah. R. (2005). (1983). 253-269). E. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.. British journal of Psychology. New York: E. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.
 Looi. Retrieved April 5. C.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. K. L. Neighbors. 8-9  Liverant. I.  Levy.. F. (1980). Wu. Accident Analysis and Prevention. L-L.  Lonczak.com. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. 15-63). Hwang. S. 536-545.M. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.P.. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.S. (Ed. 125-127. (2007). 2007 from http://www.  Lim. 36. Psychological Reports. March 26).limkitsiang. 213-222. and Scodel. powerful others and chance. 2007 from http://thestar. H-F. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Liong Sik should convene an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Road Safety to develop an urgent strategy to ensure that the number of road deaths during this year’s Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Chinese New Year would not exceed the toll of last year. and Donovan.  Lin.htm.A. Differentiating among internality. (1979). H.S. 263 . Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. A. E.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 7. J. D. February 2). Retrieved May 14.. W. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. Huang. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum.  Loo.  Lonero. The Star Online. (1960)..) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.  Lindsey. (1997). 59-67. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. In Lefcourt. Levenson. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 11. H-D. H. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. (2004). New York: Academic.my/news/story.P. In Rothe. and Yen. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. 39(3).M. (1981). D. R. 10. H. (2007. M-R. (Ed.. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1999.
 Lourens. G. 593-597..A. K. (1988). J. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. G.L. I. W.  Marsh. 27(1). (2003). M. and Williams. 55(2). (1989).. Vissers. S.K.M. Journal of Personality. Psychological Bulletin. 185-217. 68(5). 18(4).  Marcoulides.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. Malaysia.R. Watson.  Martin. (1999). J. (1997).W. H.  Marsh. and Wan. and Mooran. D. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.28.  Macdonald. Report No.A. 264 . P. of affect. and level of education. 233-252).. Journal of Rehabilitation. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. In Dorn. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. M. Victoria NSW. Campbell. and Hershberger.M. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.F. J. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Annual mileage.. Balla.A. 299313. (1994).F. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.L. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. 73-87. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. 391-411. (1994.L. and Balla. Quality & Quantity.  Maakip. 31. J. A. (2000). Australia. R. R. H. 129. A.R.  Maruyama.  Massie. L.W.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. May). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. R.L. behavior and cognition. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and McDonald.R.L.  Matthews. age. and Jessurun. 869-897. D. 62-67. (1998).P. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1995). C. (1986). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. (Ed. C. 103.M.  Luckner.
34(47). Rinehar and Winston. Ismail. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. F. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.P. 173-181. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Journal of Managerial Psychology.. L. Retrieved April 5. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis.D.  McKenna. R. A. (1983). [ in press]. 9.  McMillan. November 6).  McRae. 23. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Hampshire UK. (1974). Ergonomics.E. 45-52.malaysia-today. Understanding Human Behavior. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. E.  Mendel. Duncan.  Mercer. New York: Plenum. (1977). (2009).P. J. D.  Md-Sidin.. D. 769-778.  Meichenbaum.E. (1986). Gilbody.  McKenna. Psychological Medicine. 265 . S. (2005. Beresford.. M. New York: Guilford. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. G. I. and Burkes.R. (1990). (1998).htm  McConnell. 37(6). Risk Analysis. Unconscious suicides.. Personality in Adulthood. F.V.. 71-77.  McKenna.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Sambasivan. J. Malaysia Today. S. and Costa. (2007). I.W.P. and Neilly. 29. (1989). Perspectives Psychiatriques. Waylen. and Brown. F. 649-663. P. (1989). M. G. 2007 from http://www. The University of Reading.
In Helkama..  Mintz. 147-161. (1949). K.L. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Time intervals between accidents.E. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Michon. A. (154). M. and Keskinen.L. (2003). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. Hasselberg. 75-85. 33(3).  Monárrez-Espino. 44(2).  Miles. Journal of Applied Psychology.. H. J.  Mizel. New York: Plenum.panducermat. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. G. from http://www.M. (1985). E. Washington DC.php. Accident Analysis and Prevention. microsleep episodes.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. 266 . (Eds.A. Statistics.C. M. (1983. J. Journal of Applied Psychology. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.J. Bulmas. Aggressive driving. A. and Niemi.aaafoundation. J.pdf  Moller. 2006 from http://www.my/en/street_smart_statistik.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Retrieved December 15. In Aggressive driving: three studies. May). Simulator performance. L. 61(3). 195-211. and Shapiro. l. V. E. R. and Schwing.. L. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.. (2006).L. 21(4). D. 341-353. and Laflamme.org/pdf/agdr3study. (Eds. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know.A.  Michon. Safety Science. J. 6(2). (1989).  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). P.  Mintz. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 401406. and Johnson. and Blum. what should we do? In Evans. (2006). Turku. (1997). 2007. 335-342.  Mikkonen. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. L. Finland. C.org. Nhan. Kayumov. 38(6). Retrieved May 23.
and Krasner.. W. I. 38(1). 51-63. A. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. 72. Accident proneness and road accidents. 15(2).  Most.  Näätänen. 243-261.L. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. 167-202). (1974). S. R.B. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 137-144. Visual Cognition. In O’Donoghue . 42.  Moore. Journal of Affective Disorders. (1956). 6. and Maniam.  Niméus. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. and Summala. P. (1987). MY: Sage. R. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. A. (1999). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. 32-37.  Novaco. T. New York: Allyn & Bacon. K. (2003).  Neuman. Transcultural Psychiatry. 8. J. A. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.S. L. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. Nandy. H. and Comrey. and Gomez. R. 320-388).L. A. 339-343. (Eds. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.. (Eds. Petaling Jaya.  Nandy. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (2007). 125-132. W. Journal of Applied Psychology. E.  Morris.L. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. and Summala H.T. (2007). Boston: Pearson.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 164-174. A. 267 . (1976). and Astur. Amsterdam: North Holland. Religioin 37.E. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. Fifth Edition. Montag.  Mousser. (1994).  Näätänen.
4. Tropical Medicine and International Health. A. December 9).  Noy. N51. 34.. and Z. J. 201-215). 1016-1024. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Novaco. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A. Spanish Journal of Psychology. Aggression on roadways. (2007. (1997). A. Aldershot. 40(10). F. In Fuller. J. 2(5).L (2002).  O’Neill. and Williams. 171. R.  Ohberg.L. 445-460. UK: Ashgate. Oxford UK: North Holland. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.S.38. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. I. P. R.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. (2001). 468-472. M. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Tucson. February 8). A. says operator. and Olson. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. 92-93.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. (2000). p. (2002)..W.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Pentilla. 43-76). (1998).. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. W. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.  Ogden. In Dewar. Straits Times. K.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. P. p.  O’Connell. Driver suicides. 253-326). and Hermida. Zwi (1997).R. Ergonomics. Garner. P. British Journal of Psychiatry. and Lonnqvist. 654-656. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. R. (Eds. R.  Ochando.  Novaco. E. J.  Olson. Injury Prevention. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. In Baenninger. R. (1997). (Ed. Human factors in modern traffic systems.B. 268 . Driver perception-response time.W. M. Temes. B. and Santos. (1996). 237-252.W.F (2001). (1996. 4(2).
38(3). driving violations and accident involvement. (1995).T. 38(5). R. Manstead. and Saleh.R and Stradling..G. O. C.R. 229-235. Finland. D. 269 . C. Ergonomics. Özkan. T. 92.D.A. (1988). Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. J. T. Helsinki. A. Driving errors. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (1998). 507-526.  Parsons. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Summala. 113-140.  Parker. Traffic locus of control. and Huguenin. and Lajunen (2005). Reason.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. M. T. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Personality and Individual Difference. M. (2005). 3-13. (1974). (pp.pdf -  Pai. and Synodinos. 2007 from www. Retrieved December 20. Anger on and off the road. Ulrich. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.G.S. T.ictct. 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.  Parker..  Papacostas. R. British Journal of Psychology. 42. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Hebl.E. 1036-1048. 456-461. (2004).  Parkinson.W.. (Eds. W. J. Applied Psychology: An International Review.S.. L. 40. Amsterdam: Elsevier... and Kaistinen. B.  Özkan. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. R. Lajunen.M. D.  Parker. T. (2001). and Schneider. S. 533-545. N. 18. 479-486. (2002). Accident Analysis & Prevention.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 125-134). Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. D.. H.  Parsons. and Grossman-Alexander. Lajunen. J. Tassinary. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). 34.S. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 37(1). (2008).
and Al Haji. and Baldwin. 619-623. A.ictct.  Peltzer.C.J. S. 12(3). and Renner. 875-878.  Peden. A.s  Pelz.  Pestonjee. Superstition. M. Brazil. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. March 20-22. 1153. R. and Mathers (Eds. D. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Per.B. 68-79. B. Quera-Salva. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. and Hyder.) (2004). 9-14 270 . and Peters. 91. Campo Grande. 2007 from http:www. Perceptual and Motor Skills. M.R.and Schuman. (2002). (2000). Journal of Sleep Research. Retrieved March 31.A. Peden. Hyder. U. Mohan. D. and Singh. D. (2003).  Peters.. E. Jarawan.  Perry. Morristown NJ: General Learning. (2002).. 324. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Taillard. 3. E. 8(1). (1999).. and Åkerstedt. (2005).H. (1976). 147-154. Simple reaction time. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.. A. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. T. P. J. London: Taylor & Francis.. Geneva. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. L.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. D. British Medical Journal. Bioulac. (1980).  Philip. B.A. 201-204.. W. D. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Scurfield. (1986).R. Sleet. Matto Grosso do Sul. (1971). Switzerland: World Health Organization. 35. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. G. Automotive Vehicle Safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. Locus of Control in Personality. World report on road traffic injury prevention.. Perceptual and Motor Skills. G.M.J.A.  Phares. K.. 63.
J. Plous. S. (1965). Ergonomics. 32. 33. (1976).N.  Reason.H. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Reason. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. and Pant. W. (1990). Disaster Prevention and Management. (1989). S. Breen.  Rautela. 32(3). 733-750. internal-external locus of control and depression. (1990). Human Error.I. (2007). Journal of Clinical Psychology.. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. Cambridge University Press.S.S. T. 16(3). Stradling. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. 299-300. 566-573.-G. Hopelessness. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. R. D.  Proctor. S. C. and Lussier.J.  Radin Umar. C. Baxter.. S. 1315-1332.D. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Rider training. New York: McGraw Hill. P.A.  Prociuk.J.. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. K. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. and Langley. J. and Corlett. (1994). S. 317-333. E. R. 49(4). Chalmers. F..E.J.. 369-374  Renner. S.  Ranney. (1993).  Porter. 284-288. Traffic Engineering and Control. 3112). Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. J. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. (2000). (2005). Manstead. 673-678. (1996).  Reeder.J. 271 . and Harris. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. T. 78-80. 20(4). L. and Campbell. Journal of Applied Psychology. 334-343. J. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. 26. 32(2). and Anderle. (1991). 29(1).  Preston.
P. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S.html  Robbins.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. A. and Downe. Tippetts. E.A. 2007 from http://www.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].Y. (1999).  Richardson.. P-A. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. (2000). Ergonomics. S. and Huguenin. R. Accident Analysis & Prevention.S. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (2000).64. (2004).G. Singapore: Elsevier..  Risser. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. 34(15).R.L. Journal of Safety Research. and Voas. W-R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Robbins. Stress and Health. In Rothengatter. 45(8).D. R. R. E. (2003).B. S. Report to the General Assembly.P. Anger. R. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.efpa. (Eds. 2007 from http://202. Journal of Safety Research. Retrieved December 11.  Rimmö.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. April). (Ed). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.  Rice. 1-7. Tippetts. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.G. Organizational Behavior. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. R. 485-489.  Romano. and Nickel. Retrieved May 23. cities. 453-460.pdf  Risser. 569-582.. S. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. In Lim. and Voas. (2005). (2007) Statistik2006. Retting.  Romano. P. Weinstein. and Solomon. 272 . K. H. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.190. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. T. (2002). 37(1). Theories of science in traffic psychology. M. 37(3). R. (2003.
(2007). 3-12).P. T. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 595-600). 5.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. Psychological Monographs. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. T.  Rothengatter. 43(1).B. P-E. 10. 249-258. Boston: Kluwer. 43(3). (Ed. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. (1975).B. and Bhopal.  Rothengatter. In Barjonet. and Bhopal. 56-67. 308-331.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (1998). topics and methods.  Rotter. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.B. J. Rosenbloom. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 84-115. 80. (2002).  Rowley. and Shahar.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press.  Rothengatter. 88. (1966).(Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J.P. Traffic safety: content over packaging. 489-493. G.  Rowley. T. Capital & Class. (2002). 428-435  Rothe. (2006). J.  Rotter. whole issue. In Rothe. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.  Rotter. M. (2005). 45.B. In Underwood. (2005). (1990). American Psychologist. A. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (Ed. (Ed. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 214-220). J. (2001) Objectives. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. M. T. (pp. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.  Rothengatter. C. 273 . J. G. C.
[Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].my. (2006. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.htm 274 .gov. Thrills. M. p. (1999).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). (1997).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). In Fuller. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. B.  Salminen. (2005). Kuala Lumpur. J. S. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. 23-42).malaysia-today. 33-36. Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman. The Star. 373-376. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. and Heiskanen. Bukit Aman. 37(2). Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. IBU Pejabat Polis.). Kuala Lumpur. and Santos (Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2003 from http://www.A2. Retrieved May 22.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Kuala Lumpur. Accident Analysis and Prevention. September 29). September 26). Correlations between traffic. Retrieved December 11. sports and home accidents.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). IBU Pejabat Polis.  Salminen. (2002). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. R.  Sabey. F.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. 2007 from http://www. Road Safety – Back to the Future.  Sadiq. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. (2005. occupational. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. S. J. 29(1).  Saad.rmp. Bukit Aman.A.
E. (1981). Ericsson. 275 . 29(3). (2004). (2008. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. and Rizzo. J. Personal correspondence. Ball. Nagoya: Japan. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. (2000). Severson. C.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. (Eds. 484-491. The research process: of big pictures. Sagberg. November 15). 801-810. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. K.  Sambasivan.. (1966). 117-147)..  Schwebel... V. M. In Healy. K. 41. (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Sætermo. K. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers.. I. 3-16).. Morf. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. 673-687. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. S. P.  Sansone. F.F. L. 6(9). B. D. A. A.  Scuffham. (2003). A. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Schade. 38. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.T. Traffic Engineering + Control. Applied Economics.  Sendut. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. M.K. H. and Panter. and Langley (2002). C. Regional Development Series. In Sansone..L. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. conscientiousness. v. and Young. 314-318. P. M. (1995). and the social psychological road in between. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Healy. (1997). In Honjo. (2006).  Schlag.I. and Bourne.E.A. 34. Jr. Morf.). 6. A.T. J. Jr.  Scuffham. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp.A. and Panter. little details. M. Fosser. C.F. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. 293302  Salih. 35.C. L. and Bourne. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. and sensation seeking.C. C. 179-188.  Schneider.F.C. Asian Survey.
. 276 . 25. and Payne.P. and Warshaw. 51(1). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.  Siegriest. Automobile accidents.. D. and Roskova. 1549-1565. P. (2000).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 3-7. New York: McGraw Hill. E. (1962). (2004). (1956). Hartwick. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Ketchen.  Shinar.J. New York: John Wiley & Sons.M and Kacmar. M. S. 1. 15(3). C. (1998).S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 119(3). 237-240. L. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. Strategic Management Journal.  Shapiro. P-E. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. and Kanekar. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.R. 361-365.  Sheppard. H. Dewar. In Barjonet. (2003). Journal of Counseling and Development. (Ed. Hult.. 180-205). J. R. 66. 325-343.L. and Zakowska.  Shinar. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 397-404.  Sharma. (1988). S. (2003). M. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation.E. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. U. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). Boston: Kluwer. (1988). G. (2007). A.  Siegel. Journal of Consumer Research.M..T. 46(15). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.L. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. American Journal of Psychiatry.  Sharkin. D. B.E.  Selzer. (2001). 137-160. D.  Shook. K. suicide and unconscious motivation. Summala. Ergonomics.. C. Sekaran. Fourth Edition.H. J. B.
expression and control of anger. C. (Ed. 1029-1030. Kurylo.J. (2004). 2007 from http://www. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Retrieved December 25. Ergonomics.). Oxford UK. 237-258.K. B. Product design with people in mind. Retrieved December 1. (Ed.  Stanton. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. 1151-1158. International Journal of Stress Management.  Spielberger. S. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. (2007).R. 2007 from http://findarticles. (1992). N. Measuring the experience. H. and Frank.G... Sinha. S.. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale.J. N. (1998). C. J. In Stanton.. and Guest. (2007).. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 277 . Auto safety and human adaptation. B. 47(8). 477-492. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.  Slinn. Jr.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. P.  Slovic. Fishchoff.  Smiley. N. American Psychologist. J.K. and Watson.D.org/publik/driving. (2001. and Poirier. Editorial. In Kassinove. B.A. (1997). Corrigan. Boca Raton. R. 21(4). Matthews.sirc. P. 49-68). D. 386-397. Journal of Risk and Insurance. C. August). 14(4).. Lichtenstein. 1-18).) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp.  Stanton. B.C. FL: Taylor & Francis. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.. (1995). (1977). London: Arnold. and Coombs. M. Crowson. E.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. Issues in Science and Technology. Houston. Winter). A. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. Stress.A.D.A. P. 44.. Reheiser.pdf  Spielberger. B. and Sydeman.C. M. 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. 50(8).
(Ed. N. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1988). 949-964. N. 35. 44(3). Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. (1993). (1996). and Ryan. J.. (2005). 139(6). M. and stress.R. 37(4).  Stewart. Novaco. (2001). 2(4). The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Traffic congestion. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. M.E. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs... N. N. R.. T.  Steiner.M. 247-254. P.) Intelligent Transportation Systems.R. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. and Liwag.  Stevenson. and Erol. (2003). M. 467-480.C. New York: Guilford. R. H. Journal of Applied Psychology. R. 529-544. and Campbell. In Lewis. 1359-1370. Cheltenham.  Stough.  Storey. 178-182.E. D. (Eds. J. 43(9). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model.. and Jin. R. (2000). Stokols. Type A Behavior. and Pinto. Safety-Critical Computer Systems..  Stokols. T. (2005). Medical Journal of Malaysia.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. (1978). M. D.L. G. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.  Sümer.  Sümer. Maggio. Morrison. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. Trabasso. Bilgic. 279-300). Ergonomics. R. J. 278 . N.W. (2001). The Methodology of Theory Building. Palamara.A. and Havland. Journal of Psychology.A.  Subramaniam. In Stough. A. UK: Edward Elgar. N. D. 681-688. 63. Traffic Injury Prevention. Stanton. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.. Sümer.  Stein.. M.
The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. 41-52). R. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. and Punto. (Report 11). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. S.  Summala. (2006). Journal of Traumatic Stress. H. G. and Lajunen. (1980). H. Mahasakpan. H. 22(1-3). N. H. T. 18(4). T. 38. (1994). Karanci. (Ed. G. 103-117. S. and Gunes. 703-711. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. Accident risk and driver behaviour. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Koonchote. and Näätänen... A.  Summala. Helsinki. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala.K.. T. T. 442-451. T. (1997).. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. N. H. Nieminen. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. 383-394). 38(3). and Merisalo.. In In Rothengatter. Sümer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. vehicles. 21. (1996).  Summala. W. H. (1988). H. P. P. Özkan. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. In Rothengatter. M. Safety Science. Human Factors. Ergonomics. (Eds.  Summala.  Summala. and de Bruin. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Sümer. Nguntra. (1988). Personal resources..  Summala. R. (2005).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 331-342. In Underwood. 491-506. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . (1986). and Carbonell Vaya E. H.N. 82-92). and Tantriratna. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2005). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills.. (1996). Berument. 31. A.  Summala. 193-199. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. (Eds. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks.  Swaddiwudhipong.
(1996). 37-44..  Tanaka. S. C. (1998). Journal of Social Psychology. 34.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. In Barjonet.S. 241-263). International Review of Applied Psychology. 18(4). (1989). Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.R. J. 42.E. B. 138(5). S.G. Fujihara. L.M. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. In Grimm.M. Y.  Theodorson. D. E. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. (1969). The interaction of attention and emotion. E.C. and Huba. N.. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  Synodinos.. 353-369.233-239. J. and Kitamura. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. New York: Simon & Schuster.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Sakamoto. (2001). (2000). E. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.  Taylor.  Theeuwes.J..  Tanaka.A. A. Neural Networks. (Ed. Y..S. P. 241-257. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. J. 609-615.  Thompson. The effects of road design on driving. Fujihara. 167-172. G. Kuhn. 581-590. 25(1).  Tavris.  Tanaka. 33(2). T. Sakamoto.  Tavris. (1985). P. T. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. and Theodorson. C. 52(6). and Kitamura. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Yarnold.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.. (2001). and Layde. (eds. 280 .. and Fragopanagos (2005).R. G. S. S. P-E. G. Boston: Kluwer. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. (1985). Ono. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Ono. and Papacostas.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 23(1). (1949).. 445-448. P. and Milton.  Underwood. (2003). Wright and Crundall. R.  Underwood. accident involvement. 7. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. Cognitive Psychology. J. (1993)..  Tversky. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. C.  Underwood. Thurman. Volume 3: Attention. A.  Turner. 207-332. Enns.  Trick. and Kahneman. J. Journal of Counseling Psychology. A.) Handbook of Perception and Action. D.. J. (Eds.  Tiliman.F. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. and Sanders. O. (1973). G. 1124-1130. and Vavrik. 11-22. (1997). 106(5).T. 5. and McClure. A.A and Hobbs.E. (2001). Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. American Journal of Psychiatry. 10(3). 55-68.  Ulleberg. Science. Personality subtypes of young drivers. (2004). G.  Tversky. (1996). 32(3).. C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1999). Judgment under uncertainty. D. D. and Kirkcaldy. 5(5). Personality predictors of driving accidents. London: Academic.  Trimpop. and Kahneman. P. 123-130. J.M. G. 2. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. 185. 321-333. Chapman. Personality and Individual Differences. The accident prone automobile driver. W. R. (1985). Applied Cognitive Psychology.W. and Everatt. 147-152. L. 279-297. and response to a traffic safety campaign. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. G. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. 385-424. B. Anger while driving. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. In Neumann. H. Mills. 281 . (1974). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. 4(4).
R. Campo Grande. 210-222. T. E. J. 2007 from http:www.  Verwey.A. Smart.. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Utzelmann. 181-190). 39.M. (2005). A. R. 444-458. 913-921. In Rothengatter.D. D. A. Bergerson. “Accident prone.. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (Ed. J. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences. 26. S. and Huguenin.pdf  Vallières. and Rothengatter..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. (Eds. Ergonomics.ictct. T. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. (1999).  Velting. É.B. Ergonomics. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. T. Brazil.  Vaa. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. M. 42.J. S. (2000).. 9(2). Cockfield. Italy. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. (1999). D. 336-345.D. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints.  Vasconcellos. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (2001). H. Matto Grosso do Sul. In Underwood.” Recovery. Retrieved September 1. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst.F.ictct.  Vavrik. Harrison. Caserta. and Vallerand. G. (1998). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. A. and McIntyre.F.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Retrieved December 5.. Harris. 24-29. Meijman. (2007). (2004). Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Sanson. 282 . 43(2). (2005). March 20-22. On-line driver workload estimation.. W.A. 2007 from www.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa.
Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.R. W. Stanton.B. T. (1998). 2007 from http://www..  Waller. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. In Rothengatter.H. P. G. Retrieved December 15.. (Eds. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. 427-433. 117128. (2009. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. January 21). Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.M. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. 9.A. 421-444..html. (2001). (2000). 50(4).  Waterman. Retrieved November 2. 283 . (1997). M.F.  Waylen.  Walker. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. 33.. B. P. and Little.. 1-8). Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. N. Wellington. and McKenna. T. Raghunathan. A. D. M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. and Mallinckrodt (2003). New Zealand. and Young.E. Verwey. 28.P. Backwoods Home Magazine. and Åberg. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.A. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. 123-142. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. 438-447. 5(4).  Wállen Warner. Elliot. Shope. J. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).S.T.com/articles/waterman37.  Watson. P.  Waller. M. Policing and Educatino Conference 2.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.pdf  Wei.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. L. A.P. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2008 from http://www. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. and Carbonell Vaya E. (2002). Personality and Individual Differences. (2001). In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.theaa. F. and Zaidel. H.F. (2006).backwoodshome. Transportation and society.J. Heppner.
(1988). Advances in Paediatrics. 1116-1121. (2007).M. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Hallberg. G. (1973).. In Halsey. G. Preventions of accidents in childhood..N.  Wilde. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health.L.S.J. Snow.S.  Wilde. Ergonomics. 271278.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. J. G. G.. Ceminsky. Dunaway. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Wilde. Risk Analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1149-1152. Weissman. 135-154). G.S. (ed. M.  Wheatley. 209-225. 2. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Guiling. G. (pp.  Wilde. E.J.. 8. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements.  Wilde. (1993). Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. 31. 324. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.M (1956). S. (Ed. In Yager..  West.  Wells-Parker. S. and French. Wiliams. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. (2002). (1994). 441-468. G. B. Target Risk. P. (2005).  Wheatley. and Anderson. University of Waterloo Press. Toronto: PDE Publications. K. (2002).J. 207-219. M.. G.  Wells. 130(4).S. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Elander.S. British Journal of Psychology. Accident Prevention. (1984). R. Mild social deviance.W. J. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Fox.J. (1961). G.S. and Klerman. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. 15(11/12). G. 84. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. 450-455. R.). (1982). 34.J. Childhood accidents. M.  Wilde.J. D.. 195.
Campo Grande. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Mastering the World of Psychology.  Wilson. Applied Ergonomics. (1999). Boston: Pearson.I. (2001). J. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. 807-811.A.. and Poythress. 34(5). Lenard. A. 8. V. 303346.  Williamson.  Williams. Countries and Their Cultures. 1.  Williams. J. (2004). 31. Retrieved March 31.  Wood.G. T. E. and Well. March 20-22.  Woodcock. by age and gender. 6(2). New York: Taylor & Francis. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Ed. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. (1994). Psychological Assessment. N. J. S.) Contemporary Ergonomics.  Williams. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Cascardi.G.  Williams. 26(6).F.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford.. 527-531. L. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. S. Journal of Safety Research. (2003)..  Williamson. (2000). M. Brazil. Boyd. 99-109.Workshop. N.B. (2008). 398-403. and Boyd. and Hartman. 110-131.R. Wood. M. (2003). M. (1996).ictct.J. A.Y. J. A.C. Space and Culture. 557-567.. Matto Grosso do Sul.F. Gavin. D. T. A. 2007 from http:www.. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. (2003). 285 . T. Responsibility of drivers.. 55(175).S. In Hanson. Welsh.E. International Social Science Journal.K. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Flyte and Garner. and Shabanova. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.
(Ed. Country reports. L. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. (2000). S. 473-485.C. Ergonomics. 1314-1330. D. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Regional Office for the Western Pacific.  Zhang.  Yergil. and Harris. (2005). and Stanton. (2005). and Chaffin. G. N. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 286 .  Yaapar. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. D.A. theatre and tourism. 118.  Zikovitz. 43(9). Ergonomics. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. Report of an Advisory Group. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. 50(1). 487-503). (1999). 33(3). Geneva. Asian Journal of Social Science. In Underwood. D.R. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. X.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Technical Report Series No. M. Ergonomics. Head tilt during driving. Islam. 46-58. . 42(5).  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004).S. (2007). 740-746.
ABS ensures that. differential accident involvement). As a result. Immediately after releasing the pressure. allowing the wheel to turn. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. or benefits. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. (see also. presumably because of personality factors. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. the brake line pressure is relates. on most surface types.
it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara.Noy. (see also. McKenna of the University of Reading. it refers to a combination of circumstances. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. Also referred to as risk compensation. rather than a theory. including driver behaviour. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. In the present research. characteristics of road users. 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. 2004. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. risk homeostasis theory. The central idea is that. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. (see also. where possible. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. road and traffic conditions. (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. distal variable. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. task capability theory) . driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. p. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. (see also. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. proximal variable. 288 . accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. time of week and. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. 25). as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study.
selfefficacy and self-esteem. (see also. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). in-crash. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC).S. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. values. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. ability. 289 . 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. interests.. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. motivation. not as a unidimensional. William Haddon Jr. self-concept. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. (see also. In traffic psychology. intelligence. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. Department of Transportation. aptitudes. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash.
motor vehicles included automobiles. most usually on roads. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. motorcycles. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. That is. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. 1985. Wilde. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. trucks (lorries). 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. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . For the purposes of the present research. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. conversely. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Included in this term are walking. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. and buses. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. Private speech: see self-talk. bicycling. p. the individual differences approach. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. For the purposes of the present research. the ego and the superego. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. including life goals” (Chaplin. motorised bicycles.S. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. 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”. 333-334).
overpasses. 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. (see also. 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. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads.” (Ogden. 35). most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. signage. but only 291 . Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. Within the context of this research. at both conscious and unconscious levels. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. including the network. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. bridges. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. archways and footpaths. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. 1996. Road safety engineering: “a process. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. draining system. p. stopping places.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. tunnels. parking spaces. behavioural adaptation. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. target risk. 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. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind.
On dry roads. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. 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. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. According to Wilde (1994). which are the best predictors of behaviour. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. (see also. 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.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. 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). (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. theory of reasoned action. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. According to RHT proponents. remains constant at the target level. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . behaviour control) (see also.
(see also. from its outset. comfort. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. community planning. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. convenience and economy. motorised and non-motorised.Traffic management: planning. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. that share the same road infrastructure. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. time. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. road engineering. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. behavioural adaptation. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. management science and economics. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. ergonomics. In the present research. coordinating.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
1993). Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. Buss & Warren.wpspublish.eng. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.S. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.edu/~csp/csp.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.hawaii. Beck & Steer. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. C.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. San Antonio. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Papacostas & Synodinos. Brace & Company). TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 19500 Bulverde Road. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 2000).com/cgibin/MsmGo.html 295 .
Snyder.psych.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.edu/hope. Kansas 66045 USA www. Crowson. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. 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. 296 .R.ukans. Snyder. Houston.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
what manufacturer & model (e.g. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.g.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. please answer the following questions: 2. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. _________. We are not asking for your name. Most of the time when you travel. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.. _________. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. 1. 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 . Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.
have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (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. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. all the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11.8. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . When you want to use a motorcycle.
What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. 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:__________________________________________ ) 13.12. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months.
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.