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

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

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

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

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

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

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

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

iv

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

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

v

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

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

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

vi

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

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

2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.4.3.2.3.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2.3. Theories and Models 2.1 Concepts.5 1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3 1.3.4 Risk Theories 2.2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2.3 ix .2.1.3.1.2 2.3.3.6 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.

9.1 Age 2.3 Locus of Control 3.5.5 2.3.1.5.2 Hopelessness 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.3.4.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5.3.1.5.5.5.3.1.5.2.6.4.5.1 Statistical Models 2.4.3.4 2.3.2.2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .4.6.2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Gender 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1 Locus of Control 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.7.6 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1.3.2.3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.1.1.1 3.4.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.4.3 Ethnicity 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1 Experience 2.2.5.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.4 Hopelessness 3.2.4.5.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.3.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3.5.2 Process Models 2.5.4.

3 Study 1C 3.2 Study 1B 3.5.2.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.5.7.1 The Sample 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.6.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.5.6 3.3 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.3.2.2.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.3.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.3.7.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.7.7 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.3.7.7.5.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.7.7.7.3.2.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.6.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.4 3.5.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.5.7.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2.2.5 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.2 Research Instruments 3.7.5.5.7.7.7.1 Study 1A 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2.4 Study 2 3.7.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.

3.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.3.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.1 Age.2 Results of Study 2 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6.2 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.12.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.1.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.2.2.2.1.6.3.1 Results of Study 1 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 4.6.6.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6 xii .11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 4.1.15 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 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.6.3.6.6.6.6.12.6.6.2.5.4 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.2.2.

9.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.7.6.6.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Study 2 4.1 Study 1C 4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.5.6 xiii .7 4.4.8.3.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.4.6.8.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.4 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.7.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.6.8.7.5.9.8.8 4.3.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.4.3.5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.5 5.1 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.9.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.2 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.5.5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.

7.7.1 Theory vs.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.3 Education 5.7.7.4.4.4.7.4.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 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 .4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.6.7 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.3 Driver Selection.5.

Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 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.5 4.6 4.LIST OF TABLES No.3 3.1 4.11 xv .10 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.9 4.4 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.7 4.2 3.3 3.1 2. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.8 111 121 121 122 4.1 3.2 4.3 114 4.5 4.

29 xvi .24 137 4.25 138 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.4.26 138 139 144 145 4.18 131 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.17 129 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.23 136 4.20 134 4.14 4.28 4.19 133 4.22 136 4.27 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.13 4.21 135 4.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.

4.2 5.3 5.34 4.32 4.39 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 .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 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.41 175 5.4 208 5.36 4.33 4.30 4.35 4.31 4.37 4.

10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.6 2.2 147 148 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 4.2 2. Hatakka.4 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1 3. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.3 4.7 2.3 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.3 3.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1996.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.9 59 2. 2.1 4.1 2.4 148 xviii . 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 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 2.2 3.

7 4.12 4.13 xix .4.6 4.9 4.5 4.8 4.10 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.

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

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

However. There was a total of 341. McKenna. According to Dewar (2002b).112). 2004.roadway.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.351. A total of 10. p. 2002.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 2003). “the literature on personality has a long history. The chapter 1. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2 . there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 2005). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 1983). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. locus of control. 21).790. including the study of a large number of variables. 1989). Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6.332 drivers and 15. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 2007). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.

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

Noy (1997). What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. Speeding. for instance. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. A frequent criticism. Hampson & Morris.Increasingly.e. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 1997). has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. Parker. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 1996..3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. externally-focused frustration. however. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.e. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. The relationship between functional models which predict dynamic road user behaviour and the availability of broader integrative theory in traffic psychology is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this thesis. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. Sümer (2003). Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. in particular. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. 1997. 1.. in turn. vehicle. 2004). falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 2005).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radin Umar.228 9. Table 2. Abdul Rahman.891 8.395 2006 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. In Malaysia.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.091 37.040 2004 6.287 in 2006. 2005). the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Subramaniam & Law.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.815 2005 328. 2005). in Malaysia.425 2003 6. 2007).98 deaths per 10.286 9.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. 2005).000 vehicles in 2006.2). Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.885 35.236 49.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.552 37.000 vehicles (Law.200 9.012 19.653 2004 326. drivers within the senior secondary school and university age ranges must be regarded as being at a potentially higher level of risk than other age cohorts. Generally.7111 2003 298.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.287 9.741 38. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. from 189. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. This suggests that studies. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. Table 2. Mohd Zulkiflee. Studies 13 .to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.218 2005 6.304 in 1994 to 6. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.417 47.645 54.425 5.264 2006 341.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.20 deaths per 10.415 52. & Wong.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. 2003.

68 128 0.71 543 2.180 10. 2003).953 17.551 12.84 1.049 15.038 13.967 100 19.81 1.67 billion.27 458 2. 14 .29 708 3.45 30 0. in 1999 alone. 2001).99 164 0. or an average of RM4.947 10.15 43 0.80 203 0.65 2. or about 2.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.05 2.309 10.94 2. and particularly among younger drivers.034 4.709 8.06 608 3.593 11. Morrison & Ryan.48 105 0.41 302 1. 2002.820 13.023 5.431 7.05 1.29 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.110 10.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.418 100 19. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. 2006).005 15. Palamara.11 2.82 1.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.48 323 1. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.81 3.21 3.15 3.92 1.26 463 2.16 90 0.315 17. general insurers paid RM1.620 7.07 2.63 160 0.47 280 1.85 2.921 100 20.76 22. It has been reported that.803 9.81 2.85 147 0.94 625 3.61 99 0.54 708 3.49 450 2.08 1.68 3.37 337 1.90 159 0.67 206 0.178 15.025 9.72 554 2.23 2.086 9.94 1.56 3.216 10.10 3.91 984 4. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. 2001.378 11.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.31 3.92 2.997 14.22 150 0.08 585 2.15 572 2.05 2.07 2.50 979 4.4 billion to RM5.40 1.65 121 0.341 12. 2005).389 6.97 1.416 6. 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. Table 2.08 2.205 11.08 541 2.469 15.64 135 0.7 billion.448 17.77 3.

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

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

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

110). since 1994. 121-122). The very monotony of the road surface. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. generalising to all driving environments and situations. they are accident prone. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them.122). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. He argued that. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. has linked peninsular communities. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. Social attitudes and experience engendered by the rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have infiltrated the broader national consciousness. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. the factor that made the high speeds possible. however. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. This. resulted in a myriad of problems. 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. 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. 18 . According to Williamson. 1996).Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities.

Among human factors. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. levels of driving experience and. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. 1991). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. bad road conditions. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).2. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. by far. Among engineering factors. 1993). 1993. etc. personality characteristics (Elander. 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. 784). 62). Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. West and French. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. experiential.2 2. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors.2. but rather 19 . Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. This has included the examination of age and gender. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. particularly. Christ. Åberg.

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

2. 482). information processing. 2003). 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. Nevertheless. 1996. 2. 1993). driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. the lack of replication of many studies. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2003). It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 2002.2. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. there has been an interest in driver personality. 1997a). Wagenaar & van Koppen. 321). 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 extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1961. Underwood & Milton.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. 2005). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 21 . Preston & Harris. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. following their review of the literature. in fact. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations.3. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.4.4 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. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. Wilde (1982.. large earth-moving 31 . compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. For example. Elander et al.3. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy.accident proneness (Chmiel. albeit not crash occurrence. in a study of driving on icy roads. crash barriers. 2. The introduction of divided highways. 2. However. 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. 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. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. experience more accidents than others. That is. substantially. A driver who enters a construction zone. 2000).1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.

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

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

Summala. Rather. p. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. O’Neill and Williams (1998). In addition. after a similar review. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. 26). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen.4. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. for example. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. In other words. 2. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. or expecting. 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. 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. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. At this point. 81). 2004.3. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. and 34 . 1987. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 92).

1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Hataaka. such as time pressure. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. Meijman & Roghengatter. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Van der Hulst. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1999).learn how to respond safety to. 1998. 2. and specific driver actions. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). much of which arises from personality. 2002. 1996. age and social variables.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. On the other hand. Reeder et al. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. A large number of studies show that external motives. Summala (1996.3. for instance.1). A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. Gregersen. as a result. 35 . it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Keskinen. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process.

15).MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. 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. (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. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. but that is not 36 . seemingly concurrently. for example. at the same time. 1996) Keskinen et al. a property absent within the task cube concept. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 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.1: Task Cube (from Summala. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.

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

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

2007). however (Sharma & Kanekar. 1985. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). To deal with this uncertainty. According to the TPB.7.2). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. see Figure 2.3. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 2.” (Azjen. “Even very mundane activities. p. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. then. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 39 .2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 24). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty.

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

2002). Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. vehicles.1.4. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Similar to later findings by Law et al. for instance.2. based on data extracted from police record forms.2). there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. 2. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. 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. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. Attitude toward speeding. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.In another study. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. but after controlling for distance travelled.4 2. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. 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. Austin and Carson (2002).1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. 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. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.

1994). within specific situational contexts. 2000). Seow & Lim. 1998. the vehicle (V). Swaddiwudhipong. 1999). 1997. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4). R. E and especially H factors. Richardson & Downe.g. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Law. 1997) 42 . This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.2 Process Models 2.4. however.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). the road (R) and the environment (E).4.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Nguntra.locations and settings (e.. Mahasakpan. More recently. Koonchote & Tantiratna. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 2.

on the other hand.. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies.g. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. substance abuse) that. age. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.2.2. aggression). when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. Personality factors within the 43 . reckless lane transitions or overtaking.g. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. on one hand. it may influence crash risk through some other. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and... By contrast.g. speeding. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. more proximal variable. as well. sensation seeking. Within the generic model. Factors within the distal context include not only road. Therefore. 283). contribute directly to crash outcomes. extraversion. 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. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.5). or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.4. gender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retting. 1995).1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 2003).g.5. Campbell & Williams.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.. Type A.. 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. 1997. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear..8). 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. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Weinstein & Solomon. Williams & Shabanova. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5 2.5. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.Downe (2007). 2003.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Yet. 2002.g. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Odero et al.1. 2007) 2.

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

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

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

2001). Welsh. 1997. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. in a sample taken in the U. At the same time. (b) females drive increasingly more. they noted that many studies have not disaggregated samples to separate the effects of gender on studied phenomena and that there is considerable contradictory evidence about whether changes in females’ driving patterns have accompanied social and economic status changes.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Lenard. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 .S. worldwide. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. This is important. Woodcock. 525526). for instance. reported more traffic citations and injuries. which typically took place during evenings and nights. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. 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. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Powers and McFadden (1999) noted that: The relevance of gender to road safety has long been recognised but it has been the contribution of men drivers to fatal and serious crashes which has. Lonczak. Ball. Flyte & Garner. state of Washington. Brown. found that while male drivers. to date. 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. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. While there is much of value in such an approach. Dobson. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller.

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

being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy.S. Summala and Hartley (1998). Harper. Romano. 2005). finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Goldweig and Warren. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 .3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Haliburton. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Corry. nonCatholic countries. for instance. On the other hand. Garrett. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Schlundt. In one of the few studies reported. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. But.1.2. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. differences in fatalities persisted. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. lower rates of safety belt use. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Lajunen.5. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Levine. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Marine. To a large degree. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur.

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

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

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

frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Peltzer and Renner (2003).g. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.Laapotti et al. 2007). 1954). 1949. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Brown & Ghiselli. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. on the other hand. Young novice drivers. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. 1948. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. 2004). found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Female novice drivers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. Ghiselli & Brown. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. and especially young male drivers.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. was used in this study.. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. for instance. Mintz. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. A simple measure of driving experience.

the miles they drive. McKenna. Pelz & Schuman.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. Second.2. for instance. First. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1991). 2001. Duncan & Brown. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. 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. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. 2002a). Rothengatter.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Elander et al. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 282). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 1984). 1986. the concept is much less well developed. and type of route where.. driving occurs (Dewar. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 1984. indirectly. Wilde. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . Generally. In individual differences research. on crash and injury occurrence. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1995. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. 1993). it is accepted that the more one travels. 1971). 2.5.

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

Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1999).5.3 Psychological Variables 2. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.2.. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Levenson (1975.g. 1991. 15). or externals . Stanley & Burrows. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. Holder & Levi. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. or internals.3. 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. 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.1.5. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.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.3. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. 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. 1990). Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 2006. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. and second. In contrast. she separated the externality dimension into two. 63 .10). Hyman.1 Locus of Control 2.

E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. 1989. According to Phares (1976). 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. luck. 64 .2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Sinha & Watson.Luckner. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.1. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.3.5. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.

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

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

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

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

Montag & Comrey. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. 1975). First. 2005).Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. 1991. McMillan.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 2007. Finally. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. In the present study. (2003). 1987. 1997. indirectly. on crash and injury occurrence. 1995. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Sinha & Watson. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Kovacs and Weissman. Beresford & Neilly. Cases usually 69 . Niméus.5.3. et al. Weissman. 2. Fox & Klerman. without objective basis. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 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. Özkan & Lajunen. 1975. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 1973).9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 2007). 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. Gilbody. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Ohberg.

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

3 Aggression Since the 1980s.3. 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. Malta & Blanchard. Mizell. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Barton and Malta.5. Wells-Parker et al. Richards. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. learned cognitive scripts. 2002). 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 2000. 2006). learned disinhibitory cues. Chapman.. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 71 . Wright & Crundall. In a largely unrelated study. 1999. Lynch & Oetting.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Filetti. 2. Deffenbacher. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 2000. Chliaoutaks. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 2003. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Tzamalouka. and deindividuation. 2002. Bakou. Underwood. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. 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. physiological arousal. Demakakos. Koumaki. including subjective feelings of stress. & Darviri.

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

impatience. Williams & Haney. (2003).. indirectly. Carbone. Thurman. Later still. 2006. Kamada. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Lynch.6. It was also hypothesised. Narda. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur.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. 1999. 73 . consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Elofsson & Krakau. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 2000. 1985). Blumenthal. Frueh & Snyder. and specific content. competitiveness. 2006). Miyake. that the total amount.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. aggression. 1999). James & Nahl. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 2. Rice. Karlberg. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Magnavita. Sato. insecurity about status. 1998.6 2. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1981. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. on crash and injury occurrence. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Bettencourt et al. 2001). it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. McKee. Deffenbacher. 1999. In the present study. Petrilli. 2002. al. Sani. Kumashiro & Kume. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Undén. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving.

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

If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. externally-focused frustration (congestion irritation and hostility toward other drivers) and destination-activity orientation (inattention to the driving task related to journey motives or outcomes).2 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. Glass. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. namely “externally-focused frustration”. At the same time. Gender. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. 2.6. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. then use of the Type A/B 75 . 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. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. Miles and Johnson (2003). only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. Of the four BIT factors. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). on the other hand. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. 1977). with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. In a subsequent study. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. ethnicity.

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

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

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

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

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

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

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

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

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

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

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

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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

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

3.2.1

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

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

3.2.2

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

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

3.2.3

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

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

84

such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. cognitive. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 25). and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. 3.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 1994). 3. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 1999). consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. affective. In the present research. but not chance. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. Lester and Trexler (1974).each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. overlapping and ambiguous. a separate score for internality (I).2. For each of the five studies undertaken. For the purposes of the present research. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. a thought process that expects nothing. Weissman.2.

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

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

gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. 3.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. Then.3 3..1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).2. to the extent of inattention conditions. three demographic variables (driver age. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. Then. the influence of driving experience. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.them (e. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. In the resulting measure of this variable. 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. 88 .g. and. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. travel frequency. while driving.2. in Study 1A. 3.3.

gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. In this study. Figure 3.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. the influence of driving characteristics. the influence of driving characteristics. 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.3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. 3. In Study 1B. three demographic variables (driver age. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. travel frequency. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Figure 3. In this study. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. Finally. hopelessness. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.3. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. travel frequency. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Finally. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. 3.

Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In Study 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the influence of experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. In Study 3.3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. and (b) taxi experience. Then.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. 3. 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.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Then. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. First.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. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. This was justified for three reasons. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. 90 . Finally. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. 3. Finally.

1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Second. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. 3. Third.2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. 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: 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1.2.1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.

1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1.3.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.Table 3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.2.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.

3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.5. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: 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. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. within a 14-month period. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.Table 3.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. using the same procedures as in Study 1.5 3.

all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. 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. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.time when they travelled. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Stokals & Campbell. For inclusion in the study. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).. Stokols. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester.2 Research Instruments 3. by postal mail.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.5. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Novaco. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. 1978). during a point to point trip. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.g.5. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.2. 3. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . in the case of Study 3 participants. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. while participants were driving. In all cases.

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

High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.5. 96 . A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. A sample item is “When I get what I want. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. 3. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).2. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. 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.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. References to the faster. 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. 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. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.

Durham.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. 1993.” “When people annoy me.5. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. or 0.” 97 .” “I get into fights more than most people. I might give him or her the silent treatment.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.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.3. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.2. Beck et al. 3.” “When someone really irritates me.2. and five subscales measure physical aggression. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Tanaka et al. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. verbal aggression. I may mess up someone’s work. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. 1982.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. 1996). 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”. I may tell them what I think of them. anger. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. if not.” “If I’m angry enough.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.5.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 2005.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 1974).4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. if endorsed. Table 3. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Of the 20 true-false statements. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.3).

2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Boyd. 1997. age. 1997. 1996). derogation of others and revenge respectively.” “I want to get back at this person. Williams.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.71 to . . Table 3. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.” 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.4). Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Cascardi & Pythress. Shapiro.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. 98 . 3.88 and . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.5. 5 = “all the time”). gender.2. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . with coefficient alpha values of .5.2. Snyder et al. Three factors – physical aggression.92. 2000).91 for physical aggression. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.

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

research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 2002). Two to four times daily. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT.2 Study 3 For study 3.6. Data collection took place in taxicabs. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. 3. 13. For safety reasons. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Over the course of the trip. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Levenson Locus of Control scale. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose.0. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. 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. 2004). four female final-year undergraduate students. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. 8.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. analyses of variance (ANOVA). The PIF was always administered first. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. At initial contact.5. rel. rel. Independent-sample t-tests. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.5. AQ and Levenson scales. 100 . BIT.3. as well. aged 22 to 24 years. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.

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

2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).Table 3.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.1: 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 H9.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.

t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.Table 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. 3. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. 103 . In the present study. hopelessness.7. When significant differences were observed. locus of control.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 3.7. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15. 2000). ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. locus of control.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.

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

“1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred.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. 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. That is. 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).7 Structural Equation Modelling. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. logistic regression. In the present research. on the other hand.7. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. 3.7. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.3. using LISREL. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. In the present research. SEM was carried out. 710).

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

validation index (ECVI). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.7. 1998).7.00 in which values greater than . 112). the higher the probability associated with χ2. the normed fit index (NFI). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).10 indicate poor fit. the ratio indicates a good fit. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. an insignificant p-value is expected.7. 3. Thus. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). pp. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).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. 107 . one incremental index.0.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al.7. 1998. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 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. 3. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. and a measure of parsimony fit. Hair et al.7.. 2006).7.1 Chi-Square (χ2). 2006). 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. However. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).

00.00 with value closes to 1. Tanaka & Huba.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. 3. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.7.00 being indicative of good fit. the normed fit index (NFI.7. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. The index can range from zero to 1. with higher values indicating better fit. 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. 3. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7. 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 ranges between zero and 1.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.00.7. an RMR greater than .7. Thus. 108 .00 with value more than ..6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 2006). Bentler & Bonnet. Values range from zero to 1. 3.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.

7.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. p. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Browne & Cudeck.7. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.00. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. 2006. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. in this case.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. Like other parsimony fit indices.00. In such cases.. Although values range from zero to 1. It should be noted that. 2006).. 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. 750). it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 109 . 1994). “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. James. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. considering its fit relative to its complexity. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. Mulaik & Brett. Values range between zero and 1. 3.7.3.

2000). 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. In this case. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. it is said to be positively skewed. 1956).7.7. in this case. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 3. 1976.3. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 37). p. 1976). If the opposite holds.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. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked.05.

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

9% Total 441 100% 45.1% 121 22.9% 23.1% 34. Table 4.1% 562 57. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.13 years (SD = 1.6% 82 15.3% 8.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).4% 333 62. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1). 4.5% 57. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. 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. Then.4% 269 27. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.6% 15.4% 146 14. with a mean age of 20.1: 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. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1% 536 100% 54.5% 27.1.55).5% 6.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1 Description of the Samples Age. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1 4.6% 12.9% 14.

43 years (SD = 1.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.63. with a mean age of 20. range from 18 to 29). In Study 1A. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. with a mean age of 19. Thus.5 per cent).9 per cent). range of 18 to 26).01 years (SD = 1.68. In Study 1C.35. In Study 3.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.89 years (SD = 1. followed by Malay (27. 149 taxicab drivers participated. with a mean age of 20.53. 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. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. with a mean age of 20. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.25 years (SD = 1.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. 113 . range from 18 to 25). In Study 1B. In Study 2.

Table 4. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. SD = standard deviation 4.25 43.9 2.68 1.3% of the sample.19 S. range from 23 to 73).35 1. Johor or Perak made up 53.01 20.19 years (SD = 11. 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.7 4.2 7.2. The mean age was 43. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.3 11. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Kuala Lumpur. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Table 4.43 19.4% of the sample.5 114 .65.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.63 11.53 1.D.1 6. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.5 8.89 20.3).2: Age.

6 1.4).7 100 4.0 10. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. Table 4.2 3.7 3.2 17.1 9. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.9% of the sample.5 14.1% of the sample.6 100 4.8 11.1.8 5.4 0.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.5 1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.1. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.8 9. As the sample was 115 .9 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.6 2.0 7.2 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 % 13.7 11.9 0.4 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. 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.5). the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 116 . 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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . In the present research. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.2. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 2000). 1978).2 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 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 4.1 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. 4.

715 .906 .714 .733 .798 .703 .738 .711 .737 .740 .702 .701 .784 .890 .740 .739 .782 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.824 .741 .810 .881 α . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .735 .749 .720 .730 .904 .734 .720 .715 .817 .754 .887 .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 .782 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .756 .747 .830 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .742 .772 α .786 .727 .718 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .727 .774 .783 .808 .811 .910 .783 .788 .827 .707 .Table 4.808 .781 .

values ranging from . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.804 Study 1C .80 or above).3 Validity Test Results In the present research. 1998). confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.80. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 205). fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.804 .857 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.801 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.806 .808 Study 2 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. Table 4. Byrne.953 .807 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.802 4.811 .803 .05 indicate good fit.08 to .805 . 1998). RMSEA values less than . In Study 3.807 Study 1B .2.2.958 . more than .929 . 1998). 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. depending on which is used (Byrne.804 .876 . only Form A was used.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.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 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 118 . and those greater than . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.916 .6. with minimal error variance caused by wording.800 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.4. 1985).903 . 1998.10 indicate a mediocre fit.

00 1.00 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.96 .00 1.7.93 .00 1.061 . Table 4.00 1.000 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.92 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .047 .97 .98 1.99 .000 .000 .99 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.000 .92 1.91 .070 .91 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.3.048 . 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 1.000 .90. and destination-activity orientation.99 .99 .054 .00 1.92 .024 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 (the closer to 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .077 . externally-focused frustration.90. freeway urgency.96 1.00 1.98 1.00 1.00 . As shown in Table 4. indicating good fits.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. 1992).00 .000 .97 1.00.2.00 .074 .96 .96 . A third statistic.000 .100.089 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .000 .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 .98 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.99 .95 1.98 .00 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 .97 1.097 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.098 .097 . the higher the goodness-of-fit). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .

96 .081 .081 . verbal aggression (VER).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).96 .96 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .2.91 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).2.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). anger (ANG).91 .063 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.91 .93 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.059 .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) .083 .93 .052 .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).00 .3.93 . Table 4.99 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.8.073 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.95 1.98 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . indicating good fits (See Table 4.90.93 .93 .97 .98 .92 .071 .085 .100.95 . RMSEA values were less than .99 .085 .000 .95 .93 .97 .4.091 .096 .96 .92 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. and both GFI and CFI were more than .058 .93 .98 .92 .3.030 .

97 .98 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.97 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.055 .025 .99 . RMSEA values were less than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.081 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.073 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.(IND).94 .97 .2.97 . Table 4.98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .98 .088 .96 .93 .095 .070 .97 .97 .058 .98 .098 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.96 .98 .089 .90.97 . derogation of others and revenge.083 .94 .98 .97 .96 .98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).088 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.92 .096 .98 .98 .97 .97 .100.95 .92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. RMSEA values were less than .90.3.9: 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 . Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.098 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.047 .95 .98 .92 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.9).10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .070 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .090 .081 .10).

140) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.064(.107 (.560(.140) -.191) 1.120) 1. 2006). Table 4.192(.409(.379(.085 (.091(.920(.875(.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.179(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.297(.280) .080(.105 (.064) 1.256 (.280) .190) 1.107) 1.085 (.428) .453(.140) .4.805(.126(.280) -.140) .140) -. In all cases.022 (.140) -.099) 1.280) .195 (. 2005.331(.280) -.140) .140) .246(.010 (. 1997).656(.260) .280) .560(.280) -.099) 1.280) -. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions..204(.069) 1.297 (.3 Normality.020 (.102) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.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 .082 (.140) -.091(.280) -.280) .140) -.410(.106) 1.280) .099(.278(.280) .582(.085) 1.146(.064(.280) .226 (.140) .094 (.154(.11: Normality Tests.183) 1. Table 4.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -.403(.280) .188(.719(.192) 1.140) -.219 (.280) -.353(.278(.203(.140) ..05).280) .140) -.140) .280) .186) 1.332 (.297(.280) -.085) 1.057) 1.409(.962 (. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.140) .034 (.280) -.091) 1.280) .052) 1.239 (.179(.241(.099(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.140) .126(.323 (.140) -.511(.351 (.280) -.037(.183) 1.356 (.408(.

084) 1.884(.463(.360) -.417) .359 (.306) .062(.327 (.052) 1.501(.153) .537(.417) -.153) .156(.297 (.417) -.306) .256(.715(.362(.276(.022 (.443(.264) .267) .219) .478(.210) -.147(.214) 1.986 (.138) 1.219) .106 (.681(.142(.994(.503(.435) -.057) 1.051) .128 (.435) -.567(.962 (.451(.417) -.131(.338 (.099) 1.153) .011 (.279 (.236(.210) .195 (.952(.138(.244(.306) -.106(.640(.317) 1.153) -.219) .805 (.812(.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 .306) .219) .972(.497(.209(.940(.417) .435) -.270) 1.160 (.306) -.210) .154) -.510) 1.Table 4.300(.210) .210) .360) .153) .293 (.392(.360) .100) .153) .417) -.064) 1.022 (.306) .271(.210) -.276 (.469) 1.321) 1.366(.370(.852(.153) .153) 983(.913 (.007(.306) -.219) -.435) -.417) .423(.435) -.210) .959 (.153) .001 (.426) .533) .852(.973(306) .219) .713(.048(.540(.003 (.120(.306) .417) -.210) .719(.259) .841(.088 (.153) .366) 1.157) .110 (.128) .053(.219) -.847 (.098) 1.153) -.417) -.186(.247) 1.417) -.911 (305) 1.799(.210) -.223 (.435) -.277(.567(.265) 1.187) 1.295(.306) -.101) 1.306) -.102) .247) .210) .435) -.106(.915(.417) -.962(.053(.978(.414(.006(.135) 1.979(.948(.359 (.913(.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 1.153) .467(.219) -.324(.266 (.210) .360) .070 (.159(.030(.052) 1.104) 1.435) .919 (.153) .807 (.153) .024 (.130(.375) 1.822 (.198(.417) .306) -.629(.354 (.098) 1.147(.113 (.051) 1.024 (.153) .

13). 124 . For motorcycle drivers.3 per cent being hospitalised. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.4.4 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. column c). Table 4. column a). injury occurrence was much higher. However. if so. with 44.12. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. 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.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.12. column b).12. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.

Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 .Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Table 4. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

Most of these correlations were significant (p<.05). BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). Most of these correlations were significant (p<.4. crash occurrence and crash injury.16 shows means. in Study 1B. All these correlations were significant (p<. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Also. externally-focused frustration.5. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.5 4. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Study 1C. Study 1B. 126 . freeway urgency.05).17 shows means. Table 4. Table 4.05). However. Table 4.15 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. standard deviations and relationships between distal. standard deviations and relationships between distal.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. standard deviations and relationships between distal.

45 6.544** -.152** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .239** .342** -.97 43.15: Means.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .23 2.553** -.471** .381** .58 .44 4.376** .147* .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .416** 1 .942** 1 .88 7.405** .186** .901** .52 34.57 4.64 7.280** .246** .191** .625** .96 19.76 3.749** .396** .533** .442 1 -.147* -.371** .218** .516** 1 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Mean Distal Variables1 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (P) 3 Externality-Powerful-Other (O) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables1 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables2 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.231** .804** .339** .2691 6.562** -.036 .476 .129* .D.278** .69 24.22 3.78 .3455 .482** .716** .201** .306** .202** .345** 1 -.Table 4.662** 1 .00 165.391** -.388** .5 5.155** .08 2.818** 1 .340** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.04 26.316** .376** .209** 1 .566** 1 -.211** .435** .434** .027 1 .247** .513** .

334** .97 4 4.378** .91 15 27.324** .43 12.9 28.531** .50 5.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .540** .516** .386** .312** 1 -.444** .53 19.587** 1 -.272** .225** .213** .688**.153** .319** .338** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.254** .440**.401** .363** .355** .275** .523** .9 12 71.140* .669** 1 -.051 .Table 4.343** .445** .3079 .372** .82 7 13.176* .071 .369** .509** .213** .842** 1 .438** 1 .172** .013 1 .584** -.393** .69 8.167** .514** .003 .337** .240** .271** .028 .84 5.461** .276** .414** .762** .358** .147** .103 -.462** .85 9.66 3.103 -.403** .515** .067 -.418** .376** .491** .173* .382** 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 .159 -.602** 1 .22 4.353** .5 6 17.4960 17 .366** .195** .342** .16: Means.148* .9 13 46.157** .172** .162** .55 9 21.25 8 18.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .452** .430** .06 3 2.48 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.5695 .56 2 4.496** .518** .550** .443** .434** .278** 1 -.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .48 5.586** .4624 1 -.028 -.347** 1 -.816** .448** .268** .697** 1 .298** .555** .200** .D.279** .335** .855** .380** .491** .355** .00 14 19.331** .964** 1 .60 10 16.380** .286* .41 3.779** 1 -.481** .14 4.520** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.86 6.089 -.343** .099 .763** .408** .847** .84 7.816** .341** .411** .355** .521** .489**.45 5 87.310** .407** 1 -.150** .254** .542** .331** .254** .178** .294** 1 .731** .236** .039 .463** .921** .505** .400** .213** .

530** .254** .31 3.258** .81 -.304** .189** .167** .222** .178** .109 .804** .057 .85 19.196** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .592** .095 .264** .306** .392** .235** .17 -.03 5.265** 1 19 25.219** .49 6.518** .368** .277** 1 8 19.530** 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 .254** .615** .343** .033 .270** .246** .451** .401** .241** .192** .476** .448** .191** .130** .221** .383** .230** .838** .370** .354** 1 5 88.311** .367** .038 .454** .306** .67 7.856** 1 17 43.70 1 2 4.725** .357** .082 .148** .Table 4.016 .120 .216** .91 -.446** .069 .310** .259** .278** .37 6.338** .191** 1 3 .03 -.97 -.80 17.275** .17 -.424** 1 12 18.278** .534** 1 18 19.412** .588** 1 14 20.302** .456** .162**.422** 1 9 22.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.281** .202** .404** .151* .323** .110 .224** .413** .307**.095 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.221** .64 -.224**.81 5.320** .158** .051 .202** .345** .166** .212** .252** .18 -.36 -.281** .308** .501 .199** .17: Means.364**.119* 1 21 .250** .241** .377** .428** .199**.235** .259** .277**.52 7.131* .364** .506** .150* .747** .141* .402** .502** .423** .70 8.7 28.641** 1 4 4.355** .86 -.390** .-181** .385** .189** .174** .422 -.263** .526** .05 -.003 .186** .275** .378** .434** .270** .465** .484** .356** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .292** .150* .218** .293** .296** .745** 1 7 13.379** .314** .210**.349** 1 16 67.373** .395** 1 11 65.7 -.9 -.183** .229** .268**.8 -.230 .42 3.00 -.D.324** .076 .081 .106 .192**.271** .185** .228** .545** .298** .292** .348** 1 6 16.137* .895** 1 13 26.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .277** .251** .296** .304** .075 .291** .226** .101**.103** .294** .69 -.261** .98 4.89 5.58 9.516 .343** .245** .531** 1 10 16.193**.342** .209** .483** .508** .181** .340** .38 5.151* .183** .203** .288** .862** .228** .481** .9 -.78 8.565** .210** .305** .11 12.31 -.735** .286** .313** .109 .366** .166** .230** .70 3.227** .296** .402** .387** .749** .183** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.139** .

all BIT subscales. However.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. standard deviations and relationships between distal.18 shows means. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. 1B and 1C. freeway urgency. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. 4.5. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. 130 . Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. Similar to observed results in study 1A. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.

349** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.630** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .179 7.880 .413** .259** . 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.165 .750** .122 7.621 3.66 5.418** .035 3.290** .150 -.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .614** .240** .4683 .500** .167 .374** .291** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .314** .917 3.212* .334** .535** 1 .025 -.485 11.Table 4.66 1.562** 1 .50 73.226** .325** .55 175.219** .758** 1 .192* -.233** .6803 .376** .383** .264** .183* 1 .201* .413** 1 .367** .580** 1 .232** .200* -.182* -.043 .028 1 .356** .18: Means.48 5.371** -.317** .111 -.139 .251** .76 48.06 20.081 8.409** .313** 1 .941** 1 .323 23.072 .269** .428** .4966 1 .415** .5738 8.30 .14 27.D.876** .

significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.19 shows means. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. However.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. correlations between I and distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. As indicated in Table 4. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. In this study. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance.4. 1B.5.19. 1C and 2. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. Differing from Studies 1A. In general. 132 .

060 .067 .054 .658** .234** .121 .721** .161 -.117 .235** .180** .025 -.032 1 .853** .371** .2000 .218* .254** -.071 .13 3.109 -.182* -.092** .528** 1 .193* -.020 .Table 4.35 11.06 2.643** .240** .17 20.807** .749** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.561** 1 .030 .240** .604** .121 .404 .454** .120 .D.622** .148* .173* .060 -.0301 .418** .172** .255** .324** .171 .82 5.204* .11 15.070 -.023 -.246** .636** .225** .156 .286* 1 .149 .091 -.091 .32 7.194* .07 8.275** .588** 1 .018 -.872** .84 2.117 .3 6.45 19.072 .54 11.194* 1 .149 .32 3.05 3.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .197* .401** -.08 15.040 .147** .213** .618** 1 .88 1 .31 8.151 -.443** 1 .378** 1 .141 .268** .257** .65 75.023 .864** 1 .276** .028 .165 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .42 66.150** .10 1.82 11.245** .128 .013 .061 .039 .261** .74 15.177 1 .178** .222* .095 .576** .51 3.43 8.114 .200* .153** 1 .156 .229** .15 32.213** .646** .103 .19: Means. 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 12.289** 1 .106 .235** .048 .236** .263** .816** .271** .373** .338** 1 .117 .99 10.12 4.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .112 -.292** .4 5.521** .116 .166 .167** .152 .072 -.

1. p<. p<.01.120.180.172. p<.080. Study 2: B=. p<. p<. p<. These results supported H1.041.1.04. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. p<.1.4.125. H1. p<. Table 4. p<. p<.063.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<.4 was not supported.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.01 B=.202.146.048.034.135.117. p<.088 p<. p<. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<.102.01.01 B=.229.063. p<.01 B=.1). and externally-focused frustration.20).278.1. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. freeway urgency.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation.01). Study 1C: B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.6. p<. For the destination-activity factor. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. 4.095.090.01 and Study 3: B=.1 through H1. p<.3 inclusive. p<.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.095.01 134 .01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.238.315. Study 1B: B=.

01 B=.118. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. p<. p<.05 Study 1B B=. respectively). p<.069. p<.01 B=.21). Study 1B: B=.01 B=.054.01 B=.23 and Table 4.01 B=.165. p<.019.01 B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<.035.033 p<.01 B=. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. 135 . Study 1C: B=. p<.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.075 p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.22.01).095.2.24.01 B=.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.091. p<. 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=.059. Table 4. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.064. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.140.087. Table 4.158. p<. p<.01 B=.038. p<.01.120.074.01 B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 and Study 2: B=.6. p<.035. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. freeway urgency. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. These results supported H1. p<.01.

03 25.29 21.25 25.35 155.98 33.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.15 161.05.35 24.22: 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<.48 171.01.16 3.600** Table 4.25 5.35 33.52 25.64 26.98 171.82 168.44 178.60 185.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.64 27.43 20.68 26.35 4.92 157.32 28.56 175.89 21. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.41 167.32 147.30 22.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.77 165.31 161.82 33.50 28.88 28.06 19.77 8.Table 4. * p<.73 170.184** 136 .

52 3.05).Table 4. and those who almost never travelled (p<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. 137 . Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.73 157. In Study 2.06 8. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. 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<.29 15. about once every two weeks (p<.01).01). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.39 19.01).05).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<.53 17.81 167.12 154. On the other hand. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.14 15.00 16. * p<.73 24.88 167.00 14. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.01).060** In Study 1A.05).06 160.61 165.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.01 14.25). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01.05.01).77 16.12 161.

Table 4. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.50 24. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .81 175.25: 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<.60 72.528** In Study 3. * p<.47 5. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.50 184.26).97 8.437 (N.64 24.71 168.94 20.81 22.74 77.55 73. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.920 (N.Table 4.01.01.37 9.05.52 172.26 10.62 10.316 1. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.31 78. N. N.S.S) Therefore.58 188.859 11.82 162.65 73.S.55 10. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers.31 2. However.89 20. However.81 161. In other words.09 15.63 1.27 14.80 22. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.56 3.381 10.05.68 20.33 78.26: 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<. * p<.753* 38 48 27 20 77.

Again. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.27). t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.1 and H2. ethnicity and age – were investigated. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.6. 139 . driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. In Study 3. though. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 4. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. In Studies 1A. In Study 2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. 1B. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. however.1 was confirmed.2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. ANOVA results for age. 1C and 2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. 1B. In this case. only H2.2. For ethnicity. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. only H2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.been predicted by H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. the lower was the total BIT score.

6.01 F=1. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=19.01 F=2.53. N.S. In Study 3. p<. t(250) = 2.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.2 was confirmed. N. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. however. N.2 were confirmed.9. In Study 1B.74.12. p<. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.05.S. 4. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). N.1 and H3.01 F=9.98.01). in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=1. p<.S. In all studies.05. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). male 140 .44. Externality-Chance (C). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 F=. p<. p<.99.05 F=11. 1C and Study 2. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. N.81. p<. Study 1C t=3.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<. Therefore. H3. p<.68. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.05 F=4.S.01 F=8.3 was not supported.56. Study 1B t=2. H3. In Study 1B.05). Study 2 t=3. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. In Study 1A and Study 2.62. p<. In Study 1C.00.562.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.Table 4.05).66.

Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. For Studies 1A. p<. 141 . In Study 1C. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05 and F(2. p<.01 respectively.462. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05 and p<.05). ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. In Study 1A. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.041.527.05.01). p<.05 respectively. p<.05.05 and F(2.01 respectively). 119) = 5.490. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.566.370. t(120) = 2. p<. p<.01). p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. F(2. F(2. 299) = 5.476.05 respectively.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<. 249) = 3. In Study 2. 299) = 3. In Study 1B. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 298) = 3.05). 1C. E and P scores. F(2.01. 298) = 3. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. F(2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.941.503. 1B. 298) = 6. t(299) = 2. F(2.

3 were supported. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2 and H4. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. H5. were supported. H4. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. However.079. Therefore. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.1. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. 1B or 1C. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<.3. In Study 1. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. so H4. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. t(120) = 2. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. 4.1.05. H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.3 was supported.2.1 and H5. H5.1.2 and H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.3.3.3. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. that age influences hopelessness. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. 142 .6. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. In addition.2. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. in Study 2.3 were not supported. H4.Therefore.01).2.

01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.290.186.254.28).312. respectively). In Study 1B.1. H6. respectively). but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively). with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. p<.3.6. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. 4. p<.341.306. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.4.01.3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01 and (B = . In Study 2. H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . that internality would influence hopelessness. were supported. p<.342. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. was not supported.01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .371. p<.239. H6. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.2 and H6. H6.01.2 and H6. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. 143 . I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01 and B = .01. were supported. Therefore. In Study 1C. p<. p<.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. p<.254. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.6. 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. p<.01 and B = .01 respectively).1.354.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.

01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .254. was supported in Studies 1A.275. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .01). with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 B=.05).317.151. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.288.01).418. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B =.1. externally-focused frustration (B = .232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.05 B=.05) but not for freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.01 B=. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.05 B=. p<.4. p<.317. p<. H7. p<. p<. p<. p<.01). p<. p<. p<.01). Therefore. p<. p<.141. the higher the hopelessness scores.247.05 In Study 1A. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . In Study 1B. p<. B=. H7. p<. p<.157.191.415. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<.01).247. freeway urgency (B = . freeway urgency (B = . 144 .349. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.099. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. p<.157.415.153.153. N. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .05). that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.191. In Study 2.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .3 and H7. p<.200. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01 B=. p<.278. p<.01). p<.287. In Study 1C. 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=.01 B=.Table 4. the higher the hopelessness scores. 1C and 2.151.01 Study 1B B=. p<.280.01 B=.01 B=. p<. H7.05 Study 2 B=.2.280.01 B=.01).151.349.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 Study 1C B=.01 B=.287.05).01 B=.254. p<.275. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.S.232.151.141. p<.

229. where only H8. Therefore.1.208.753.01 B=-. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<.339.01 B=.044.S. p<. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=.S. H8.4.006. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.01 B=. that the higher the subscale score for I. p<.01 B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=-. Table 4. N. B=. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. provided support for hypothesis H8.239. N.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. p<.2.3. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=.3.01 B=.S.6.01 B=-. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. N. B=.1. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.2. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. p<. With regard to H8.05 B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. p<. p<. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores. H8.29).388. 145 .01 B=-.1 and H8.336.315. 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 H8.178. p<. p<. but not H8. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.1.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.625. With regard to H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=.297.077.168.

p<.01 (see Figure 4. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.710.2).909. In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4.05. 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.01 and F=8. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.01 respectively (see Figure 4. Further. F=4. 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. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.581. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. F=4.1). F=7. 146 . p<. p<. =8.704.272. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. p<.1).Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.

9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.282.327.6. multiple regression showed mixed results. B = .00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.034.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. p<.00 66. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.444. F=4.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. 147 . hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. First. p<.05.00 64. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.00 62.05. However. in Study 2. Kurtosis=-.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. R2=. 1B and 1C.033.00 68. 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 4.3). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.

Kurtosis=-.167.459. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . p<.608.070. p<.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. B = .3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01. R2=.371).01.4).463. 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. F=18.

Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<.31). N.210. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.164. the H9.05 respectively.05 t=. N.01 (see table 4. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.01 t=-. 4. p<.2. t(300) = 2. N. N.690. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.298. With motorcycle drivers. p<.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. t= . mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. In Study 1B and Study 3.Therefore. p<. 1C and 3. F(2. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. However. p<.S t=1. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. In both studies. p<. p<. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. and H9.01 t=4. were supported.01 t=2.01.690.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.S t=2.05 t=4.1.05 Study 1C t=2. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.480. In Study 1C. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. p<.01 t=2. p<.780.S t=2. 249) = 5. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .30).820.187.6. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.S. and t(250) = 2.603.521.677.467. however. Table 4.032.603.

mixed results were found. N. N. mean IND scores of Malay.S.S. p<.S. N.S.S.S. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=2.021. Table 4. N.526. 299) = 4. 299) = 5.763. F=1. In Study 1C. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. N. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.632.01). When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.629. F=2. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 3.S F=10. 249) = 10. p<.S.S.182.05 Study 1C F=5.041. F=5. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F(2.077.155.904.57. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3. F=1. N.432. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. F=1. N. F(2. N.01.S.567. p<.804.561. p<.01). Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.01). N. F(2.S.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.S. F=1. N. F=4.564.398.422. N. 150 .01.01 F=2. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<.01).01 Study 3 F=1. 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. F=. N.432.05. F=1. N. p<. F=2.S.521. p<.01 F=.041.

1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. 151 . linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.1.4. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. were supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.4. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. respectively. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. In Study 3. only H11. H11. VER and IND subscale scores. externally-focused frustration. H10. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted the total BIT score and the scores measuring only two of the four BIT component factors: externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation (See Table 4. In Studies 1B and 1C. The higher the total aggression scores. were all supported.Therefore. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.3 and H11.2.3 and H11. freeway urgency.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. was supported. H11. H11. H10. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. H10.6. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.32). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency. however. 4.29). However. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.

01 and B = .01 respectively. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.05 B=.01 B=.545.438.370.01 and B = .540. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<. p<. respectively. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.01 B=. B = .461.491. B = . p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.385. 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.216.229.01.5). no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. B = .01 B=. p<. Also. but not in Study 3. p<. B=.121.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<.Table 4.01 B=. B = .048.370.428. Study 2 and Study 3. N. p<. but not in Study 3. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<. B = .01. p<. p<.01. Study 1C and Study 3.324.483. respectively. However.01 B=.01. Similarly.01 Study 1C B=. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .520. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01 Study 3 B=.01. p<. B = . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.05 (see Figure 4.387. p<. p<.204.01.01 B=. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. 1B.01 B=. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. and B = . p<.01 respectively.S.565.380.183. 1C.05 B=. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. N.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<. and B = .263.263.881. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.505. p<. F=3.S. p<.235. p<.

Residuals Normality: Skewness=. In other words. and B=-.6.297.316.01. B=-. Kurtosis=-.01.362.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<.516.05. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 42. R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48. F=81. R2=. for Study 1B. respectively.929. p<. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.271.12.961.100.003.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.01. F=100.172.645. Kurtosis=-. B=-.6. The moderating effect of I was significant. 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. p<.01.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 44. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. R2=.131.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.00 46.076.

This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p<. Kurtosis=.01 respectively. p<.01 and B = . R2=. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. F=94.271.109. p<.369.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. R2=.360. R2=.12.069. 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=. F=91.015.01.117. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.507. p<.6).have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. respectively).387.431.088.757. In Study 1B. Kurtosis=-.897.271.606.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. p<.01.6. Kurtosis=-. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=.694.01. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.297. respectively).794. R2=. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . R2=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. F=78. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. F=71.297. p<. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.704.01. B = .

externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .1.2. and the moderation effect was not significant. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 and B = .01 respectively.7). H12. p<. 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. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. p<.332. and H12.3. 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. Therefore. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. B = .significant.302.

01). Also.05. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.01. t(250) = 3.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.3.13 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.279. p<. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.05. 249) = 5. 248) = 3.343. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.01. 249) = 4. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.885. F(2. Only H12. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. However. t(249)=2. 156 . and about revenge F(2.1.01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<. p<. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. 4. H122 and H12. p<.314.737. 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<.05).05). p<.6. with the sample of taxicab drivers.263. p<.

B = . This means that. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. on total BIT score were also tested. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<. H14.2 and H14.01 and B = . 4. the higher were total BIT scores. was partially supported. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. freeway urgency. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.277.364. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.307.Therefore. p<. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. p<. was supported. were supported. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.01. This means that. p<.413.2. B = .3. p<. externally-focused frustration.3. H13. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.1 and H13. B = .01.01. Therefore. were supported. B = .192. p<.1.394. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.224.01 and destination-activity orientation.01. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.01.01. H14. B = . the higher the total HAT scores. (that thoughts about physical aggression.379.6. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. p<. B = . was not supported. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. H13. 157 .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. respectively.

809.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. p<.565. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. F=55. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297.072).013.4.188.297. In other words.05. Kurtosis=.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=. 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. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. p<. p<. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.01. R2=.-554.6.085). F=57.002.911.8). Physical Aggression and Revenge. Kurtosis=.

Kurtosis=.092).026. H15.6.475. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. B = . H15.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. R2=.297.01. p<. was not supported. p<. 159 .207.Aggression was significant.33). The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. However. B = .294. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<. were supported. 4.01.01. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.246.1 and H15. F=59. was supported. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Therefore. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.2.3.

S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S N.Table 4.S N.S S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S N.S N.2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S N.S S N.S S S N.S P.S S S N.S P.2.S P.1.S S S S S N.S P.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S 160 .S 3 P.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4. S N.2.3.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 1C P.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S S S N.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.1.S N.S S S S S S N.S N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.S.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2.S S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S N.S P.S N.2.S S S S P.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.

S 3 N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S N.S P.S S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4. P.S 2 N.S N.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N. N.S S S S S P.S P.S S N.S N.S N.S 161 .3.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S 1B N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S P.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S= Not Supported.S N.S S S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S STUDY 1C N.S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.Table 4.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S S S N.S N.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.S S N.S P.S P.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.S N.

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

102 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.58 35. F4 F1. F2. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. F4 F1. HAT I. F2. F2.g. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. P. AQ.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.93 . Externality Powerful-Other (P).97 63.4.96 . F3 F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.087 . P. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. two were worthy of further examination. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.00126 . HAT I. C. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. 4. C. BHS I. Study 2: motorcycle driver. F2. F3. P. C.80 104. 163 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.00111 .00000 .93 . F4 F1. F3. P I. F4 χ2 49. P. BHS.05522 .045 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F2.97 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . Externality Chance (C).38 100. F4 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Aggression (AQ). 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. HAT Proximal Factors F1.00000 . freeway urgency. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. 2002). C. F3. P.f. Hopelessness.093 .060 Note: Internality (I).068 .90 110.02 d. AQ. freeway urgency (F2). Table 4. AQ. C.00000 .52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Hopelessness (BHS). Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.7 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) The contextual mediated model was tested using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) – path analysis through LISREL 8.93 . AQ I. BHS. e.96 RMSEA .7. F3.34. F3. C.

Externality (Chance). . 5. Externality (Powerful-Other).42. with path coefficients = -.10). Externality (Chance). For Model C6. with path coefficients = -.5.92) on accident involvement.f.28 and .043. For Model C5. C6.02. GFI=. RMR=.=33. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.91. of the BIT score. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.060. AGFI=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. RMSEA=. ECVI=. 164 . CFI=.97.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.3.=24. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.96. d.97. RMR=.98).51 and PGFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. RMSEA=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.32. Externality (Powerful-Other). . .92) on accident involvement.48. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. For Model C6. An alternate model. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.destination-activity orientation (F4).94.10). For Model C5. CFI=. but not as good as for C5. which are detailed in sect. AGFI=.f. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.045.96.42.97.29 and .13. and PGFI=. values were: NFI=. .23 respectively (see Figure 4. .26. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.14.043. d. To aid this discussion. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. GFI=.26.35. ECVI=.

29* Aggression (AQ) .51* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. *p<.32* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.79* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .f =24 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.97 GFI=.045 RMR=.63* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.57* Injury Occurrence .92* Accident Involvement .58* .97 d.99 P-value = .

05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 P-value = .50* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .58* Injury Occurrence .02 GFI=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.56* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.77* .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .39* .f =33 CFI=.96 d.63* .29* Aggression (AQ) .31* Externality (Chance) .060 RMR=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.92* Accident Involvement . *p<.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.

IND. HAT-P. path coefficients = . HAT-R PHY. ANG. HAT-D. HAT-P. ANG.91 .95). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.91 .00000 .65 and . F2. F3. F3. F4 χ2 108.=61. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). VER. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).80) on the accident involvement. IND. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-P. HAT-D. IND PHY. F3 F1.10. F2. 167 . HOS. VER. 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). ANG.f. Indirect aggression (IND).94 169.00000 . Aggression (AQ). ANG. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. HOS. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. HOS. F4 F1.66 131. d. RMSEA=. GFI=. HOS. IND.081 .35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.In addition. CFI=.73 169. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-P.f.41.93 .080 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).13 respectively. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Angry (ANG). freeway urgency (F2). HAT-D. HAT-D. VER.41 d.084 . HAT-R PHY. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).35).66). F4 F1.66 153.00000 GFI RMSEA .92 . HOS. IND. F2.91. F3 F1.91 . F3. F2. HAT-R PHY.00000 . Hostility (HOS). Verbal aggression (VER).084 . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F2.078. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.00111 . ANG.

29* Hostility . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.72* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* .91 d.95 P-value = . *p<.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* .41 GFI=.58* .83* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .000 N=252 RMSEA=.63* Indirect Aggression .62* .80* Accident Involvement .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.69* Anger .05 .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =61 CFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .078 RMR=.61* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .

F2. GFI=. P I.4. P. RMSEA=.07580 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. BHS I.047. F3 F1.12 d. F2.98). Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).062 Note: Internality (I). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F3.86 23 28 23 . 169 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.047 . F4 39.94. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. Hopelessness (BHS).=28. P. path coefficients = -. BHS F1. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.33 33.06722 .94 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.12). C. p-value GFI RMSEA I.7.95 . F4 F1. 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. F2.f.36). d. C. Externality Powerful-Other (P). the participants were motorcycle drivers.12.17631 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. CFI=.65 and . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. freeway urgency (F2).36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. Externality Chance (C).f. C.058 .2 Study 2 In Study 2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.66) on the accident involvement.94 .

12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .83* BIT3 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.89* .65* Externality (Chance) .88* Crash Occurrence .78* .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.95 d.57* Internality -.047 RMR=.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12 GFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.70* BIT4 .f =23 CFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.99 P-value = .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .

p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).061 Note: Internality (I). Externality Chance (ExC). F4 Crash Occurrence 18.027 I. 37.13). CFI=.f. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.35265 . P Proximal Factors F1. F2. GFI=.93 .=21.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. C.22 23 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. the participants were taxi drivers. I.95.7. 171 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. AQ F1. F3. AQ F1.40) on the accident involvement. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.03084 . F3. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.00524 .3 Study 3 In Study 3. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). P.079 Injury Occurrence I. freeway urgency (F2).95 . F3. Hopelessness (H).59 17 .94 .97 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31.39. path coefficients = -. F4 50. F3. AQ F1.82 28 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.20 respectively (see Figure 4. C.95).06743 .f. Internality and AQ. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C.39 21 . P. d. C.20 and . RMSEA=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.4.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.37).061. F2. but not Externality. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).

63* BIT3 .74* -.13 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.61* BIT4 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. *p<.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.95 d.f =21 CFI=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.39 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.39* Internality -.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .95 P-value = .061 RMR=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.20* Externality (Chance) .

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. 2 and 3 are satisfied. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Therefore.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. consistent with path analysis results. Table 4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. and.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 4.39).4. 173 . (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.38).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.

BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Table 4.40). Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.8. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.8. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).41). where the 174 . 1B and 1C. Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.3 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 4.40: 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. in Studies 1A.

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

01. 176 .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 4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01.9. Study 2: t(422)= -2.663. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= -3.01. p <. Study 1C vs. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.442. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.Table 4. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <.05. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.426. p <.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8. p <. p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8.665.162.01. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.837. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.993.01. Study 2: t(421)= -4. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.

01. p <. p <. p <.861. p <. p <. t(986)= 34. p <. p <.926. p <.402.801. p <. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. “freeway urgency”. Study 2: t(422)= -6.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.704. Study 2: t(372)= -6.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(986)= 3.01. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 37.9.687. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. and to injury occurrence.01. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 30.01. t(253)= 8.01.261. Study 1B vs. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.775. 177 . t(986)= 7. p <.01. 4. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01.186.577. 4. p <. p <.01.01.01.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.747.977. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 2: t(421)= -7. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Also. Study 1B vs. t(253) = 2. p <. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. p <. and t(986)= 35.200. p <. t(986)= 5.484.01. Study 1C vs.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.614.01. Study 2: t(372)= -7.211. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.9.01.01. Study 1A vs. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 2: t(422)= -4. respectively. Study 1C vs.01.433. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <.01.837. t(986)= 6.

946. Also. t(253)= 35.01and to injury occurrence.01. p <. p <. p <.016.977.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. “freeway urgency”. and t(253)= 37.567. respectively.737.01. p <. p <.01. t(253)= 8.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.881.01. t(253)= 11. t(253)= 31. p <.982. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 8. p <. t(253)= 39.01. 178 . drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

181

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

5.2

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

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

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

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

182

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

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

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

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

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

184

5.3 5.3.1

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

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

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

185

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

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

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

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

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

186

20.hierarchy. SD=1.5. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. By virtue of their age and occupation.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones.01years.2 years. there are other possible influences. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . SD=1.7 months. SD=11. respectively). internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.1.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society. SD=. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Because of occupational demands. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Of course.16.3. as well.63. and 36. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.25 years.6 months as licensed drivers. They were also more experienced (266. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.1 months. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. For taxicab drivers. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. SD=131. For taxicab drivers. SD=22. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.53. 5. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. Inclán. respectively). In the present study.

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

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

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

Underwood et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. during such incidents. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Further. Finland and the Netherlands. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. With taxicab drivers. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. 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”). Underwood et al. Petrilli et al. Deffenbacher. on a journey by journey basis. Parker. (1996) and Deffenbacher. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Oetting et al. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. 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.conditions. physical aggression. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make.

however.. Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less frequent hostile automatic thoughts. but not when they involved the derogation of others. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). The effects of aggression on behaviour. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge.strongly. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). in the samples studied here. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Such responses. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. as well. 2006). Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. the world and others).. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. In essence. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. That is. 1997). but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. although still significantly.

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

Dien. 1999. 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. Watson & Wan. Stein. 2002. Carretie. 2002. Lambie & Marcel.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Tomkins. p. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.5. Mercado & Tapia.. 2004. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2000. and attempting to exercise control over. 2000. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.Robbins. Performance (e. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 5. Martin. hostile automatic thoughts. 1997). Hinojosa. 2005). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. MartinLoeches.g. aggressive emotionality. 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. Taylor & Fragopanagos. In fact.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 1996. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 1993). 162). Making sense of. Trabasso & Liwag.

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

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

both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2006. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Md-Sidin. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Maruyama. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 2006). As a general rule. 2000). provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. Fit index values (e.90. CFI.. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 1998. GFI.5.. 2001. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 5. 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. CFI and CFI) greater than . Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan.In the present research. At the same time..g. 1998). 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. RMSEA lower than . it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. we would argue. 2001. Structural equation modelling should.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. significant p-values can be expected. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Sambasivan & Ismail. Hair et al.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. It is argued here that.

and practical considerations (p.10) excluded the fourth factor. 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. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. two structural equation models. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. destination-activity orientation.soundness. 4. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . More importantly. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. 88). provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. In the case at hand. In some cases. However. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.3). statistical.7. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.1. 1C5 and 1C6.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. 158). “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. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. stating that. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. as suggested by Byrne (2001). There is some support for this position in the literature. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. Thus.

97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.48 30. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.045 0.97 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.02 0.499 0.94 0.96 1.97 0. F2. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.02 0. Injury Occurrence 35.96 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. C.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Table 5. F2. 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. C. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.034 97.02 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. AQ.42 11.043 129. P. AQ. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.909 0. P. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 1.97 0.060 0.91 0. 199 . Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.98 0.

Storey.1). For practical reasons. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Schwebel. but still acceptable. while for Model 1C6. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. By selecting Model 1C5.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Kayumov. Parker. based on the notion that each variable included may. 200 . 1995. 2006. Hair et al. 1990.48. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 1996). provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason.42. Reason. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. et al. 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. However. 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. 2006). they should be dropped. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible.. in particular. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. in this analysis. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. farther along. Manstead & Stradling. it is 0. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. goodness-of-fit. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.

externality-chance. Rothengatter. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.28 respectively). and hostile automatic thoughts). internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.26. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . 1991.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. aggression. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Evans.1). indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2001.45). 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.5. 2003).35.6. externality-powerful other. crash occurrence (r = -. freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .35 and . Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . via BIT. with five distal factors (internality. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.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.29). externally-focused frustration.21).5. . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.g. The results suggested that the alternative model.66). In Study 1C. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.34) and injury occurrence (r = . the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. externalitychance. Sümer.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.5.28 and . indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.4. on crash outcomes. for automobile drivers sampled. externality-powerful other. . As observed from the investigation of structural paths.

55).41).23) and injury occurrence (r = . and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. which sampled motorcyclists.5. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. 5. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-chance. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.4. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. crash occurrence (r = .66) directly predicted crash outcomes.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .25). Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. Aggression. crash occurrence (r = .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.24).internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. freeway urgency. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). 202 . had a better fit than other alternative models. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . on the other hand.20) and injury occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. Results indicated that the first alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.65 and .

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

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

55). while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Study 1B: 100%. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.6%.2%). Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.2% and Study 2: 99. in Malaysia.2). The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.31. 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. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Sabah.In Malaysia. 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. Since. as elsewhere. with a mean age of 20. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.13 years (SD = 1. The most populous state. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Study 1C: 99.6% (Study 1A: 99. Selangor. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. 205 . With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Table 5.2 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.

2 (13) 11. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.4 5.Table 5.188 1.7 (2) 2.200.000 215.2 3.6 5.576 2.6 6. Table 5. In both cases. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.000 3.1 (7) 8.000 1.100. For that reason. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.500.2 11.7 (14) But.000 1.5 (4) 4. 206 .2 (1) 3.8 (6) 6. Table 5.5 (8) 3.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.8 6.0 12.6 0.818. 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.887.0 4.674 1.2 (5) 0.387.000 2. Not all states have the same number of drivers.004.0 8. in this case.300.396.286 1.6 (10) 7.260.880 3.807 733.150.2 7.9 (9) 7.3 (12) 11.503.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.6 2.2 (11) 12.000 2.500 1.000 Per cent of national population 26.9 9. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.9 (3) 2.2: 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.

05 2.041 92.064 9.170 13.34 11.88 2.88 3.68 7.Table 5.600 135.43 2.588.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.35 4.24 0.93 0.98 0.735 165.13 6.36 8.029 273.28 3.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.75 4.16 2.920 181.20 12.768 6.144 12.63 207 .093 5.96 3.84 11.104 6.606 24.137 698.230 266.50 29.22 17.617 10.774 Participants’ State of Origin (by license 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 % % % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.46 8.490 525.635 1.93 9.37 3.212 39.251 324.026 10.19 3.34 3.4 4.45 9.90 5.19 7.89 3.163 10.725 70.19 4.785 393.91 2.97 12.467 25.428.85 1.70 12.76 3.70 3.27 14.003 10.496 187.561 1.92 25.198 156.55 7.24 2.

75 5.48 1.10 9.38 4.212 39.88 2.725 70.768 6.4 4.88 3.93 9.46 14.02 10.02 7.45 2.46 5.288 444.989 6.727 161.03 4.283 770.37 3.15 5.22 3.49 12.64 2.20 15.38 0.656 821.82 9.856 310.003 10.561 1.28 3.221 36.35 4.43 2.606 24.63 11.958 % 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 12.14 7.144 12.992 776.27 14.104 6.064 9.76 3.64 1.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.995 233.93 7.92 25.026 10.63 13.Table 5.112 347.49 0.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.133 705.36 8.615.33 4.59 12.66 11.679 90.74 208 .029 273.98 0.170 13.305 276.59 1.617 10.79 13.722 255.467 25.

it is possible to say that sampling. was representative of a high risk driver population. Table 5. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.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) .824** .903** .Table 5.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. at least. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. Of course.3 and 5. At least on these dimensions.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. participants came from – or.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. it can be argued that they were. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.814** 1 .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .

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

. 1996). inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. for instance. as in a study reported by Chalmé. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. combined interview and observational methods. 211 .g.g. Visser and Denis (2004). subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. therefore.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. 5. 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. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. blood pressure. muscle tension. In the present research.. 13). Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. In future studies. though. A further methodological problem occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. the more information is lost through memory lapses.6. the longer the time period for data collection. Particularly. The assumption. as well. in studies of driving behaviour. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. Yet. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.

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

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

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

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

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

3). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. In the present research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). 95-96). and if they are resultscentred (pp. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. In this case. In 217 . Yet.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 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. 304). the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. hopelessness. for instance. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 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. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. 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. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 2. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 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. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research.

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

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

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

Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. 1957). Slinn. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. teams of humans. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1). From this has emerged the growing 221 . and machines are highly intricate (p.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. At the same time.4. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. Unlike 100 years ago. or legal intervention. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.4).5.7.7. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1961. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. for the last fifty years.4. 5. 1957. 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.7.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. World Health Organisation.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).

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

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

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

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

 Radar. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. including those in adjoining lanes. 226 . t-junctions and vehicle displays to warn the feedback to the driver when pedestrian crossings that will speeding driver of impending that speed is being exceeded trigger high-illumination intersections. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. ACC systems provide modifications. the host vehicle.  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”. generally pilot”. point.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. the systems  intersection modification. are travelling.1. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. systems (CVHS) – wireless  adaptive cruise control  road network modifications. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher  cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. traffic lights) safe.(continued) H 1. than the safety standard. to in-vehicle display terminals.. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. H 1. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.1.2  lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.

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

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

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

one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. N6). and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. however. 2007. 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. They also stated. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 1978. The bias of false consensus. p. such as visibility of enforcement.7. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. 1030). Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. or an internal locus of control. was studied in a 230 . p. legal measures change least often.4.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. First. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. from the findings of the present research. Second. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. 265).5. that “Of these three approaches. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p.

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

Similarly. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). 232 . or not adhere. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.drivers’ decisions to 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. 10(2). N6.G. Brazil. Matto Grosso do Sul. 557-562.0.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Nash.F. November). [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. 21(4). (2006). 2007 from http:www. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Personality and Individual Difference. [79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005). (2000). Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. R.W. [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). [84] Cheah. F. Driving: through the eyes of teens. 41. 109-122.-H. (1985). Retrieved March 31. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. P. Howard.-L. W. [81] Chang.. (2007.H. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. 61-71). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.-H. R. J. New York: Dell. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1996). R.ghipr.D.[77] Carver. S. and Denis.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. [85] Cheung. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Y. Monash University.ictct. Taiwan. S. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Cheung. [82] Chaplin. 467-477. Kuala Lumpur.P. 2008 from http://www. Campo Grande. and Huguenin. (2007). Malaysia. What are we allowed to ask. Visser. The Star. Dictionary of Psychology. T. J. In Rothengatter. (2004). Retrieved October 15. R. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. H.M. [78] Chalmé. D.. and Lim. November 12). and Yeh. March 20-22.pdf 244 . Sunway Campus. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. (Eds. T.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Snyder.ukans. C.psych. Crowson.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.edu/hope. Kansas 66045 USA www. Houston. 296 . Snyder.R. 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.

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. Within the last twelve (12) months. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. When you want to use a motorcycle. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. 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. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. all the time ___ yes.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 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.

but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. Within the last twelve months. 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. Within the last twelve months.12. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful