This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
and destination-activity orientation. 302 and 252. personality traits. seven fatalities are recorded each day. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. where. freeway urgency. However. some personality constructs. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. demographic (age. vii .ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. 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. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. on average. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. 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). respectively). driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. and that driver behaviours. externally-focused frustration. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. hopelessness.
consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. As hypothesised. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. BIT. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. as well. 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. viii . The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Among distal variables. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. The role of the proximal variable. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Results indicated that. As reported in previous studies. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury.
1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3.1 An Applied Perspective 22.214.171.124.2.4 126.96.36.199 Concepts.3 ix .2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.3 1.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2. Theories and Models 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.5 1.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.4.1 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 188.8.131.52.2.4 Risk Theories 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.1.2 2.2.2 1.1 Accident Proneness 2.1.
184.108.40.206.1 Locus of Control 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3 Ethnicity 22.214.171.124.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 126.96.36.199.5.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 188.8.131.52.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 184.108.40.206 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.3 Locus of Control 220.127.116.11.2 Gender 2.2 Driver Characteristics 18.104.22.168.2.3.1 Statistical Models 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.5. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.1 Age 2.5.6 22.214.171.124.4 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.2 Process Models 2.5.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1.2 Hopelessness 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 184.108.40.206 Hopelessness 220.127.116.11 Experience 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.
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 .6 126.96.36.199.2.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 188.8.131.52 Study 2 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5.3 184.108.40.206.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 220.127.116.11.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 18.104.22.168.4 3.5.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.8 Crash Occurrence 22.214.171.124 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.2.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 126.96.36.199.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 188.8.131.52 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.3 Study 1C 3.5 3.1 Study 1A 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 18.104.22.168 The Sample 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2 Study 1B 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.5.2 Research Instruments 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.2.
4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.2.6.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1.3 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Results of Study 2 188.8.131.52.3.1 Age.3.2.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.2 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 184.108.40.206.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 220.127.116.11 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.12.1 Results of Study 1 4.4 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.1.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.5.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.2.6 xii .CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 126.96.36.199 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 188.8.131.52.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 184.108.40.206.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.
7 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.6 xiii .8.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.4 220.127.116.11 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.6.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 18.104.22.168.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Study 1C 4.8 22.214.171.124 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 126.96.36.199.8.7.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 188.8.131.52 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.9.2 Study 2 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.3.2 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 5.3.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.1 5.2 Goodness of Fit 184.108.40.206 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.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 220.127.116.11.5.4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.
3 Education 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.3 Driver Selection.4.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 18.104.22.168 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.1 Theory vs.5.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4.4 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 .22.214.171.124 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7 126.96.36.199.4.
4 3.11 xv .6 4.3 3.3 3.2 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.2 4.5 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.1 2. Table Page 2.10 4.LIST OF TABLES No. 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.3 114 4.1 3.1 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.8 111 121 121 122 4.9 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.7 4.5 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.
16 128 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.12 4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.22 136 4.27 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. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.17 129 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.25 138 4.14 4.20 134 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.24 137 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.28 4.19 133 4.13 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.21 135 4.18 131 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.23 136 4.
40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.6 xvii .3 5.31 4.34 4.37 4.2 5.5 209 225 5.1 199 206 207 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.36 4.35 4.41 175 5.4.30 4.39 4.4 208 5.32 4.33 4.
3 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. Hatakka.3 4.2 3.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.1 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.3 3. 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.4 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.1 2.7 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 4.LIST OF FIGURES No.1 4.2 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 1996.4 148 xviii .6 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 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 2.9 59 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 147 148 4.
6 4.4.8 4.7 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 4.9 4.13 xix .12 4.5 4.10 4.
and his mental state. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. But. programme. he’d taken the same course as she. LISREL couldn’t. but she’d nagged him. they cut across a lane too quickly.D. they were focused on the errand. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. just every so often. I like to watch boxing. I hope it makes a contribution. My research design needed a serious re-working. and this thesis is the result. they were frustrated and angry with each other. And they crashed. I didn’t recognise her at first. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. xx . only a trimester or two earlier. He was very popular with other students. I knew the fellow. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I told her not to worry. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. to the weary traveler. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. But sometimes. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I don’t cry much any more. How important these factors are. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. I wanted to throw in the towel. externally-focused frustration. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. at least not with real tears. things were not going well. she was riding pillion. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas.PREFACE Accidents occur. He was driving. I’m a fairly big guy. they are prone to other types of error as well. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. I’m pretty happy with it. Her hands and voice quivered. I feel like it a bit right now. or wouldn’t. She had needed to go on an errand. finally. He didn’t want to go. The behaviour of the traveller. lane deviation and all the rest. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. She started crying and couldn’t stop. . is a matter of debate … Obviously. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. They were hurrying. I was confused by the results I was getting. I got back to work on them. She had been badly injured.
judgement.g. Sleet.g. 1996. 2002.. 2004). Green.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. commented that. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. 2007. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Theeuwes. Verwey. 2004) have been studied extensively.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. Even after decades of study. for instance. 1999). Mohan & Hyder. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. such as Malaysia. Graham. 2001). Stanton & Pinto. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder.. 2000). environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Olson. Iwasaki. This is particularly salient in developing countries. cognitive (Vaa. Furuichi & Kadoma. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. state of mind and physical well-being. road. Ogden. 11). 2002). Peters & Peters. Trick. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. perceptual (Hong. 2007. Scurfield. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Mills & Vavrik. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Enns. policy-makers. 2004). including the 1 . 2006. Sabey (1999). Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. anticipation. Consistently over the years. 2000. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 2001.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2000).
2003). According to Dewar (2002b). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. p. McKenna.roadway. 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 research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 1989). This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 21). 2004.351. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2007). including the study of a large number of variables.790. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. A total of 10. The chapter 1. However.332 drivers and 15. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2002. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2005). 1983). “the literature on personality has a long history. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. locus of control. 2 . the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. There was a total of 341. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.112).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.
Severson. 2003). 2007). ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2004. aggression (Parkinson. 2001. 1997). 2001. 2004. 1997. West & French. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Shinar. 2001). Elander. Vasconcellos. 2000. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. 2002. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2002. Gidron. Sumala & Zakowska. Lin. Lajunen & Summala. 2002) and many others. 2003. Barrett & Alexander. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2000). risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1994. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Stewart. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Hwang. Blasco. Wells. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Wu & Yen. 3 . Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 2005. 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. Draskóczy. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Lajunen & Kaistinen.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Gonzalez. 1979. Historically. Ball & Rizzon. 2004). 1991. Verwey. Hence. locus of control (Arthur. Huang. Loo. Renner & Anderle. Parada & Cortes. Wells-Parker et al. 2005. 1997). 2006. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 1999. Rimmö. 2006. 3). Özkan. Dewar. 1993. 2005). Barjonet & Tortosa. 1997). 2002. Schwebel. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Cohn. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 1997). attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Ulleberg. 2002b.
1. Sümer (2003). aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. in turn. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 1997. vehicle. 2005). loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. however. Speeding. 1997).e. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. for instance.. Parker. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. 2004). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. 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. 1996. A frequent criticism. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 .3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia..e. Noy (1997). personality and demographic) and proximal (i.Increasingly. externally-focused frustration. Hampson & Morris. in particular.
1. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (b) driving experience. 2005. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 9). but also on their interactions. 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. 5 . gender and ethnicity. “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. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. p. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. (c) driver locus of control. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. By focusing on not only demographic. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. (d) driver hopelessness. situated as proximal variables. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. injuries and deaths. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 2000). 94).Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. Näätänen & Summala. 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. Katila & Peräaho. 1997). 2004). Laapotti. 1997. 2004. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. in the applied sciences. 1974). Hatakka. 6 . p. 2004. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. There is a growing sentiment that. the plethora of theories available. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. “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. 1993). road safety measures and public policy. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. Some authors have suggested that. Moreover. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Utzelmann. 2001. 2005. Rothengatter.
in turn. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. Che Ali. 2001). A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. attitude theory. human motivation. This broader perspective.. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. 2001). 7 . and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. In doing so. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. which deals with methodology. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver..g. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit.g. To the author’s knowledge.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. Radin Umar. It is useful. 1. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. 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. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour.
however. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. p. at the conclusion of Study 1C. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. Babin. freeway urgency. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. hopelessness. externally-focused frustration. 1B and 1C). In this case. aggression. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. Anderson & Tatham. In each successive study. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. In Study 1. cultural background). was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. driving (experience. 2006. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . The final result. Black. driving experience. or outcome. gender. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. the effects of selected demographic (age. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. 711). first. each entailing data collection from a different sample. variables (Sekaran. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Study 2 and Study 3. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. second. 2003).
1. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. 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 . this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. over the course of 30. Again. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. a third model was constructed. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. After the initial model-building had been completed. in fact.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design.to 45-minute trips. In Study 2. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.are most important in predicting. In Study 3. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. verbally administered psychometric instruments. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. 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. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.
including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. while recognising the distinction.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Baxter & Campbell. Finally. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. 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. Stradling. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Katila & Laapotti. The present research. Boyce & Geller. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. Are the attitudes. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. 1990). Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. as well. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. 2002. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. 1997). accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. The relationship between the manner 10 . at least to a certain extent. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. Manstead. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Keskinen. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. However. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
1 2. “peaceful”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. These are thought to have contributed. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 1989). 2005). 2005). inconsiderate and aggressive. 2003). “friendly”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2007). 2006). “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2007). “bullies” and “selfish”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. “discourteous” (Davin Arul.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. Over 6. 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2007).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. in aggregate. In newspaper reports. The public image of driving in Malaysia – and the generally negative reputation of the driving community – suggests that roadway safety has emerged as a significant national problem. to a rapid increase 12 . Recently. 2005). “impatient”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. economic expansion. there were 341. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. in order of frequency. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. they indicated “angry”. industrialisation and motorisation. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.1. “patient”. “reckless”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.
the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.425 2003 6. Mohd Zulkiflee. Generally.645 54. 2007). 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.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. 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.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.000 vehicles in 2006.20 deaths per 10. Radin Umar. This suggests that studies. Subramaniam & Law.653 2004 326. Studies 13 .264 2006 341.287 9.000 vehicles (Law.98 deaths per 10.236 49.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. 2005).552 37.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.200 9. In Malaysia.228 9. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. Table 2. from 189.040 2004 6.741 38.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. in Malaysia. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. & Wong.417 47. 2003.395 2006 6.012 19.7111 2003 298.885 35.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. Abdul Rahman.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2005). Table 2.425 5.286 9.304 in 1994 to 6. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.891 8.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. 2005).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.287 in 2006.091 37.2).218 2005 6.415 52.815 2005 328.
94 2.205 11.341 12. 2001).15 3.08 2.216 10.08 585 2.07 2. general insurers paid RM1.180 10.178 15. or about 2.56 3.91 984 4.84 1.68 3.803 9.967 100 19.61 99 0. and particularly among younger drivers.26 463 2.4 billion to RM5.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.110 10.85 2.05 1.389 6.11 2.97 1.620 7. 2002.23 2.54 708 3.023 5.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.820 13.65 121 0.709 8.15 572 2.92 1.81 3.086 9. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.45 30 0. 14 .80 203 0.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.68 128 0.71 543 2.90 159 0.67 206 0.49 450 2.05 2.85 147 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.593 11.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.921 100 20. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.82 1.40 1.049 15.50 979 4.953 17.77 3.10 3.72 554 2.005 15. or an average of RM4.416 6. 2005).16 90 0. It has been reported that. Morrison & Ryan. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. 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.94 1.038 13.315 17.06 608 3.05 2.21 3.418 100 19.22 150 0.48 105 0.378 11.309 10.551 12.448 17.034 4. Palamara.47 280 1. in 1999 alone.63 160 0.025 9.997 14.67 billion.92 2.48 323 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.31 3.29 708 3.81 1.65 2.7 billion.94 625 3.08 541 2.37 337 1.947 10.99 164 0.64 135 0. 2003).07 2.29 2.469 15.76 22.431 7. Table 2.41 302 1.08 1.15 43 0. 2006).81 2.27 458 2. 2001.
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. 2006). Some seven years later. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . or the pain of the maimed. Criticisms of road configuration. The economic consequences can be estimated. 1999). In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. (Bernama. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. traffic congestion. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. 2005). What else can we do. In 1999. which is actually a nightmare. if people want to die? (Lim. lane definition.Yet. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 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. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable.
how they think. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 1997). the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. given greater risks of accident.(Abdul Rahman et al. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2005). as compared with 1. A leading university professor and Director-General of Malaysia’s Institute for Road Safety Research similarly noted that: Malaysian drivers are not good in safety routines. unlike in other countries. Researchers. newspaper columnists. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. In 2006. though. 2007). approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. 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. 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. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. Who they are. 2001. 2006). Generally. for instance. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 2005). is often mentioned as a factor. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 2007). In a recent newspaper interview.
reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Chalmers & Langley. For instance. In a separate study. perhaps.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Ward. injuries and fatalities. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. respectively.1. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Law et al. 2. In the same study. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. In none of the studies of the MSP. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Bartle & Truman.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. 17 . 1996). however. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. This is. Ahmad Hariza. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. 2007). Radin Umar. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. Mohd Nasir. Law. rather than personality factors. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Musa. (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.
According to Williamson. the factor that made the high speeds possible. they are accident prone. 1996). 110). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. Social attitudes and experience engendered by the rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have infiltrated the broader national consciousness. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 121-122). This. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error.Williamson (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. generalising to all driving environments and situations. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.122). He argued that. since 1994. 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. however. 18 . road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. has linked peninsular communities. The very monotony of the road surface. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. resulted in a myriad of problems.
62). driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. 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. 1993. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. Åberg. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. experiential. Christ. This has included the examination of age and gender. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash.2. 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. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). by far.2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Among engineering factors. 784).2 2. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. 1991). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. Among human factors. but rather 19 . Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. levels of driving experience and.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. 1993). particularly. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). bad road conditions. etc. West and French.
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. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. to a large degree. Ranney. 2004) and other contextual variables. Lajunen & Summala. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. Haddon (1963). as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. or at least predict. 1994). 2002. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 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. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use. 377). unclear. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. 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. 2005).by the behaviour of drivers. prior accident experience (Lin et al. 1997. weak. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 2004). Further. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. However. 641). He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 .
2003). psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 1961. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Preston & Harris. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. Nevertheless. the lack of replication of many studies. 21 . motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.2. 2.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.2. 2005).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. 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. Underwood & Milton.2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. information processing. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 482). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. there has been an interest in driver personality. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1997a). 1996. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 2003). 1993). 2002.
” (p. 3). 246). predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.2. 2002). as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. anthropology and sociology. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. eoncompassing engineering. According to Rothengatter (2001). that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. To wit. Indeed.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.2.) 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. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. Ochando. in a Spanish survey. ergonomics. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. transportation planning. but that complex traffic 22 .654-655. or the psychological support for intervention. psychology. 4). medicine. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. traffic and transportation. 2. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. in the field of traffic.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. or peculiar to.
which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. surrounding environments and 23 . 24). 2000). and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 1995. Johnston. In the broadest sense. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Hyder & Peden. 2002). 1158). there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. Peden & Hyder. the road environment comprises the vehicle. Stanton (2007) noted that. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. over the past ten years. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 2007. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. in particular. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. as well. Garner and Zwi. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. the road infrastructure and other road users. 1997. Odero. Wilson. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 2004. the study of cognitive processes. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. In a recent special edition. Ergonomics has made a contribution. 2003.
These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Increasingly. Walker. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 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. error and cognitive modelling. 2001). a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. particularly the notions of mental load. 26). in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. predict and modify road user behaviour. Jannssen. Neerincx & Schriebers. 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. 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. Noy. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . though.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Theories and Models In attempting to understand.3. “This school of though.3 2. 2004). Stanton & Young. 2006. 2. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 1997. 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.
A-18) Often. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. Healy. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 2. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 1995). To a degree. 1969).. or both. in traffic psychology. 2005. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. but for the purposes of this thesis. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 1985). often in mathematical form. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. 2000. many models have been proposed. Reasons for this are likely several. p. this may be due to 25 . generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. 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. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson.3. p. In traffic psychology. or accident-causing behaviours. 2005). Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. On the other hand.
Rothengatter. and emotional determinants. feel in control. risk adaptation theories. avoid obstacles. 2002). 2005). cognitive. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. and most of the time is not especially influential. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. attitudes. For over ninety years. Instead. 26 . 189). the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. etc. given the complexity of human behaviour. enjoy driving. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. motives and personalities (Robbins. Notwithstanding these difficulties. 2. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. social. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. 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. 2004. perceptions.the imprecise definition of concepts.3. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver.. minimise delay and driving time.
or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. but not occupational accidents. aged 16 to 29 years. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. 1990). 2000). crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. 1995. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . anxiety and driving anger. 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). “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. for instance. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. 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. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. neuroticism. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. According to Rothengatter (2002). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. 1980) and other safety outcomes. McRae &Costa. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. 1979). However. conscientiousness. aggression.
152). personality.3. According to Haight (2004). sensori-motor skill. weight and perhaps even intelligence. his or her accident proneness. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. If each individual has a unique λ-value. Research by board statisticians. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board.3. just as one can meaure height. 1920). p. the average number of accidents. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. 1984). West & French. “irrespective of environment. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. 290). and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. λ. found first that the frequency of accidents.finding. 2. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1962. during and following the war years. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. in certain cases. p. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . occupational and otherwise. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. 1993. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. but persists today. In 1917.
422). Scores on the λ dimension. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. made an assumption that. in any sample. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 2004). 1929. Johnson (1946). 294). The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 1997). a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. by devising clever tests. inappropriate. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. in successive years. The accident-prone concept. produced a positive. 1991. but did not take into consideration whether. as well. inadequate or irrelevant. 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. p. 1956). Farmer and Chambers (1926. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. None of the experiments. 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. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919).out what that value is. noting that. 1939) and many others. 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. however. subjects reported significant. in traffic or when playing 29 . 195). that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. at home. 2004). in a Finnish telephone survey. perhaps physiological. “Because crashes are so infrequent. more probably psychological (p. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position.
Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey.sports. 8-9). it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Pijl. 1980. 2. sports and family settings. Visser. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. 1993).3. Stolk. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. pp. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 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. So. 1998). The concept itself is ill-defined. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . roadway. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Ultimately. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 562). 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.. therefore.05.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.3. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.
2000). researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. Wilde (1982. large earth-moving 31 . Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. The introduction of divided highways. in a study of driving on icy roads.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. crash barriers. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. For example.accident proneness (Chmiel.4. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. However.3. following their review of the literature. substantially. albeit not crash occurrence. That is. A driver who enters a construction zone. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. 2. Elander et al.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.. 2. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them. experience more accidents than others.3. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. 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. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. in fact.
performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. 2002). p. 1986. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . 14).” (Fuller. Ranney. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Initially. 2005).vehicles and warning flags. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. Sagberg. Collectively. Michon. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. for example. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. 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. a driver motoring along a wide. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. When others (Haight. at least until the target risk level was reached. 1989. in turn. 2008. That is. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. 1988. Conversely. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. according to the theory. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. McHugh & Pender. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1997). 1994. according to the theory. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. flat. Wilde. Fosser & Sætermo. In two separate studies. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 2001.
53). the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. To the contrary. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. 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. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. Also. 1989. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. Fischoff. Lichtenstein. the community. p. 2002). 2008. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 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. 2004). Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. (p. More than any other driving theory.. pay sufficient attention to risk. p. Rothengatter.” (Vaa. 1151). Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Slovic.. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. 2004). 2001. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. Evans 33 . 223). however. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. 2002). 1977). psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Corrigan & Coombs. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. but they are not defined in psychological terms. 1994.
81). and 34 . Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. Rather.3.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. In addition. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. At this point. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. 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. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 2. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. p. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. some degree of risk during the performance of this task.4. 92). 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. 26). While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 1987. Summala. after a similar review. 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. for example. or expecting. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.(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. O’Neill and Williams (1998). 2004. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. In other words.
used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. such as time pressure. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Meijman & Roghengatter. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. Summala (1996. 2. A large number of studies show that external motives. much of which arises from personality. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. 1998. for instance. 35 . Gregersen. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 2002. 1996. age and social variables. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. as a result. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Reeder et al. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.3. and specific driver actions.learn how to respond safety to. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Glad & Hernetkoskis. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS).1). 1999). Hataaka. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Van der Hulst.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. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. Keskinen. On the other hand.
at the same time. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. 1996) Keskinen et al. a property absent within the task cube concept. (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. 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. for example.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. but that is not 36 . Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 15). Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. seemingly concurrently. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy.1: Task Cube (from Summala. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc.
252). Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 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. high speeds. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. affective states). Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.g. 2000) 37 .3.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 2.1). drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 1982.. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. However. Most of the time. Fuller (2000. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories.
p. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 126). largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.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. 1985. emotional state. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .Fuller’s theory has. Fishbein & Ajzen. objects. institutions or issues (Chaplin. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Two limitations have been noted. 2. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. for the most part. p. Generally. 2004. 1991).6. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. According to the TRA. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. and Keskinen et al. time pressure). Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. Since 1985.3. 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. 40). Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date.3. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. however. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 1985. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour.
1985. however (Sharma & Kanekar. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 39 . p. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). According to the TPB. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 24).” (Azjen. then. 2007). see Figure 2. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). To deal with this uncertainty. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. “Even very mundane activities. 2. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.7.2). and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).
2002.e. Further. 1989) Within the theory. greater perceived control (i. p. 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. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 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. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. In one study. or sense of self-efficacy. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.. 253). when intention is held constant. 2003). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 40 . Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.
to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.4. 2. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.2).1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. Many of these use accident data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes. based on data extracted from police record forms. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Austin and Carson (2002). while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. for instance. but after controlling for distance travelled. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Attitude toward speeding. vehicles. 2002). they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.In another study. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.1. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. 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. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding.4 2. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. 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 .2.
and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. R.g. Koonchote & Tantiratna. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. 1999). 1997. 2.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1997) 42 . 1998. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Law. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4).1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H).4.4. the road (R) and the environment (E).locations and settings (e. within specific situational contexts. Mahasakpan.2 Process Models 2. however. Richardson & Downe. the vehicle (V).. Swaddiwudhipong. Seow & Lim. E and especially H factors. Nguntra. 1994). 2000).2. More recently.
more proximal variable.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. Personality factors within the 43 .4. 283). driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. 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. extraversion. gender. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on the other hand. reckless lane transitions or overtaking.2. on one hand. as well. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.5).g. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. it may influence crash risk through some other. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. sensation seeking. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes.g. By contrast.g. substance abuse) that. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. speeding. Therefore. Factors within the distal context include not only road. Within the generic model. contribute directly to crash outcomes. age.2. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. aggression)....
e. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. risk taking. sensation seeking. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. depression. As such. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2.g.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. 2003) 44 . psychological symptoms.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 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. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.g.
If. called the outcome. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 1986). In Figure 2. for instance. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. 45 . Also termed intervening variables.2.6(i). 2003). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. such that path c′ is zero. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.2. Tix and Barron. moderating or mediating effects. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 2006).4. 2004). proximal variables (including safety skill levels. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Figure 2. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’).3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. M. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.
and the interaction or product of these two (path c). Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable.7): the impact of a predictor. the impact of a moderator (path b). or testing the moderating effect. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 1986). or dependent. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.(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.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. 2003). 46 . these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. variable (see Figure 2. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. or independent variable (path a).
Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. anxiety. errors). and non-professional students who were mostly students. In turn. verbal aggression.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. given wide 47 . choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. Using structured equation modelling. he found that. dangerous drinking).4. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes.2. hostility. hostility. psychoticism). A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. Further. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. more relevant to the model he proposed. anger).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. However.
2003. responsibility. lapses. Edward. 2002. 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. McRae &Costa. trust). Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. Lajunen and Özkan (2005).739). Arthur. Bell. sensation seeking). for high-λ individuals. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned.. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Tubré & Tubré. 1995. conscientiousness (dependability. 1920). 1998). Finally. 1990) to a similar analysis. broad-mindedness). violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Elander et. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. sensation seeking patterns. 2005. Sümer.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. Greenwood & Yule. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Here. In a subsequent study. Day. or “Big Five”. as recommended by Elander et al. Watson. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 1919. (1993) and others. 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. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. al. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). in most cases. agreeableness (helpfulness. personality model (Costa & McRae. 1993). while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency.
yielding support for the contextual mediated model. navy. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. for instance. prior to the present one. phobia. hostility. They found that the effect of proximal variables. material loss.2. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. anxiety. self esteem. Sümer. In another study. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. In other words. 225). The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Berument and Gunes (2005). Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. 49 . sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. have acted on those recommendations. Bilgic. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Karanci. air force and gendarmerie. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies.4.aberrant driving behaviours. optimism. reported that driver anger. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. Sümer. using a similar research design. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. including perceived control. Although no other studies of driving behaviour.
they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. 2003. Williams & Shabanova. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie..1. 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. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5. 1995).8).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Retting. Weinstein & Solomon.g. 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. Campbell & Williams.Downe (2007). Odero et al. 2003).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Type A. 1997.5 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .g. 2007) 2. 2002. Yet.. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.
to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 221). specifically more likely to drive too fast. 2002a. the contrary appears to be true. Billittier. 2002a. for these difficulties. 2007). comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Jehle. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. less emotionally mature. However. in many cases. 1986). at least in part. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Moscati. this is a reflection of lifestyle. Harré. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. follow too closely. drive while fatigued. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. The former is less experienced at driving. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Matthews & Moran. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 1997b. Vassallo et al. In fact. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. tobacco smoking. 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. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. p. Bina. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 2001.. Connery & Stiller. McDonald (1994) reported 51 .The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. Jonah. overtake dangerously.
that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. indirectly. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states.39). and that young drivers. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. on crash and injury occurrence. as age decreased. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. Similarly. Stevenson et al. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. 1999. 52 . risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Vissers & Jessurun. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. it was hypothesised in the present study that. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 2007). Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). managing velocity and regulating acceleration. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. In the present study. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). Justification of age-related hypotheses. Ulleberg. 2002). They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information.
This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. without exception. 129). male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. as age decreased. more often at hazardous times (e. it 53 . that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. “In all studies and analyses. for instance. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.4). it was also hypothesised that. 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. Waller.5. Elliott. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. MacGregor. 2004. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. self-reported injury would also increase. p. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. However. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.failure to use seat-belts. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females.. Monárrez-Espino.g. Shope. Tavris. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. darkness)” (p.1. 2. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). for instance.g. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. for instance. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. as well. Chipman. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e..
While there is much of value in such an approach. Flyte & Garner. Woodcock. Lonczak. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Dobson. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. This is important. in a sample taken in the U. reported more traffic citations and injuries. to date. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Lenard. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. found that while male drivers. At the same time. for instance. they noted that many studies have not disaggregated samples to separate the effects of gender on studied phenomena and that there is considerable contradictory evidence about whether changes in females’ driving patterns have accompanied social and economic status changes.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Ball. worldwide. 525526).S. state of Washington. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Brown. 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. Welsh. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. 2001). 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. 1997. there is also a danger than concentrating on the differences between women and men drivers may obscure the identification of the major factors relevant to the safety of women drivers (pp. (b) females drive increasingly more.
showing that male drivers were. 11). (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. indirectly. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. 2003).. on the other hand. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. just as they had in 1978. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. though. 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. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. et al. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. and loss-of-control incidents. were less frequently involved in crash situations. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. 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. Forward. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). In other research. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. control of traffic situations. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. 2006. In a subsequent report. Lourens et al. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. 55 .anger. Laapotti. on crash and injury occurrence. evaluated their driving skill lower. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. McKenna. In a study of Dutch drivers. Turner & McClure. Female drivers. as per the traditional pattern. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. In the present study. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed.
Summala and Hartley (1998). Corry. Schlundt. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Marine. To a large degree. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. nonCatholic countries. Haliburton. But. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities.5. lower rates of safety belt use. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . differences in fatalities persisted. On the other hand. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Levine.1. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. In one of the few studies reported. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes.S. for instance. Goldweig and Warren. Romano. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. 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. Harper. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.2. Lajunen. Garrett. 2005). White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.
Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Family centeredness. cultural differences can be more subtle. respect for elders. respect for knowledge. Strong relationship orientation. respect for elders. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. family ties.. courtesy. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. brotherhood/sisterhood. shame-driven. Indirect communication. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. 2000. face saving. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Conscious of what other people say about us. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. hierarchical.2). filial piety. 1999). Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. They concluded that there were. In the present study. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. harmony with nature. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Roman et al. family honour. humility. piety. respect for elders. prosperity. Spirituality. hard work.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. on crash and injury occurrence. Table 2. peace. in fact. prosperity and integrity. religion. cooperation. polite behaviour. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2005). Strong relationship orientation. While religious affiliation. Education. Fatalistic. 1999). Karma.. However.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. indirectly.
journey lengths.2. As experience grows. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 166). increased experience usually. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.. A large number of studies have shown that. 2001). in a given road and traffic scenario. etc. 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 . and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Laapotti. although not always. 2. Keskinen. Lajunen & Summala. Allied to this. 2002). inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. as drivers become more experienced.g. 1995. Hatakka and Katila. On the other hand. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. 1971).5. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.behaviour in traffic. passenger distractions different vehicles. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. with different weather conditions. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. directionality of the effect was not predicted.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.5. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. and as such.2 Driver Characteristics 2.
1996. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. direction and position Figure 2. environment.by Keskinen. Internal models contain knowledge of route. 2001). When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy.9). social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. 2004). and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. Hatakka. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. 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. It assumes that. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. as individuals acquire experience. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Yet. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. in many studies of age and gender differences. 59 . as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. Hataaka and Katila (1992).
Young novice drivers. Female novice drivers. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy.. for instance. Mintz. 1948. A simple measure of driving experience. 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. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. and especially young male drivers. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. 2007). on the other hand. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. was used in this study. Ghiselli & Brown. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Peltzer and Renner (2003). such as problems in vehicle handling skills. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. Brown & Ghiselli. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers.g. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs.Laapotti et al. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. 1949. 1954). 2004).
indirectly.5. Wilde. McKenna. 1984. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. First. Second. for instance. 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. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1991). 2001. Rothengatter.2. Elander et al. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 1986. on crash and injury occurrence. Pelz & Schuman. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . 1993).. 2. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. driving occurs (Dewar. 282). but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. 1984).effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 1995. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. 2002a). there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. and type of route where. the miles they drive. Duncan & Brown. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. the concept is much less well developed. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. it is accepted that the more one travels. In individual differences research. 1971). Generally.
a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. without correcting for annual mileage. Several authors have emphasised the importance of considering differences in traffic exposure when studying the effects of psychological or demographic factors on crash and injury risk (Abdel-ATy & Anurag. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Yet. 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. 62 . Ferguson. 2007). Evans (1991) and others. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Justification of exposure hypotheses. (1999) have argued that. Teoh & MCartt. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.hours than during the forenoon. 2007. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. indirectly. Christie. as defined by Elander et al.. Odero et al... Cairns. 2007. (1993). Towner and Ward. Lourens et al. (1986). This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes.g. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. on crash and injury occurrence. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. 2006. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. although much research does not (e. 2003). Bina et al. however. Williams & Shabanova. In the present study. in countries like the USA. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Mercer (1989) showed that.
1 Locus of Control 2. 1975.5. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. In contrast.g. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 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. Holder & Levi. Stanley & Burrows.10).5. 2006. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 1990). and second.3. Hyman. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. or externals . bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. 1991. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. or internals.3.. 63 . such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 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. 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.188.8.131.52 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. Levenson (1975. Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. 1999).3 Psychological Variables 2. 15). she separated the externality dimension into two.
luck. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . According to Phares (1976). 1989.5. Sinha & Watson. 64 . Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. 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. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.1.Luckner.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.3. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.
Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 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. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 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. 1987). In a subsequent study. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. however. 65 . French & Chan. 39).More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. On the other hand. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. however. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. Harrell (1995) sampled Canadian wheat farmers to show that those incurring injuries in the field were more likely to score high on a measure of risk taking and to believe that their accidents had been caused by fate. but results have been inconsistent. 1999).
Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. 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. On the other hand. offences. Gidron. 1260). cognitive. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 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. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. In a much earlier study. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. although internality was unrelated to DDB. That is. In an important study. (p. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. They found that. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. Arthur et al.
Hsieh. India. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. 2. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Japan. is based on the notion that … luck. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. France.5. complexity and unpredictability. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Italy.1. 122). This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Their results. Noy (1997). Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. as hypothesised. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Germany. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Noting that Chinese culture.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. which is considered to be full of ambiguity.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. indicated that. and the USA. Canada and Japan. (1991). In very early research. 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. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Israel.3. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. with situation-centred Confucian foundations.
Cheung. only Cheung. 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. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Chinese of Malay extraction. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. all internal characteristics. skill and ability. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. In very early research. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. 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. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 68 . Chinese and Indian populations. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 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. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. At the same time. 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.
1975). without objective basis.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 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.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.3. on crash and injury occurrence. Niméus. Sinha & Watson. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. (2003). indirectly. 1991.5. 1987. McMillan. 1995. First. Finally. et al. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Özkan & Lajunen. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1997. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Kovacs and Weissman. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 1975. Fox & Klerman. Gilbody. Weissman. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. In the present study. Montag & Comrey. 2005). 2. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Beresford & Neilly. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. 2007. Cases usually 69 .Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Ohberg. 2007). 1973).
found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. in fact. 1998..involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. in a more detailed study. Breen and Lussier (1976). including risky driving. on crash and injury occurrence. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. it was suggested that “many persons with self-destructive inclinations may unconsciously attempt to destroy or injure themselves through automobile accidents and that these accidents are rarely perceived as suicidal attempts by either the driver or the public” (Selzer & Payne. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Very early on. Henderson. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. 1976. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). indirectly. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. Selzer & Payne. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. 1974). it was 70 . and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Prociuk. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Second. Firestone & Seiden. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. Mendel. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. In the present study. for instance. 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. 1990. luck. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. 1962). Several authors. 1997. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. 1962). assertiveness and positive emotion.
Demakakos. and deindividuation.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. 2002. Underwood. 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.5. Chliaoutaks. 1999. 2002).hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Wells-Parker et al. Lynch & Oetting. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 2. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors.. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. & Darviri. In a largely unrelated study. including subjective feelings of stress. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Filetti. physiological arousal. 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. Tzamalouka. Wright & Crundall. 2006). 2000. learned cognitive scripts. Chapman.3. 2003. Koumaki. learned disinhibitory cues. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 71 . sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. Malta & Blanchard. Richards. Barton and Malta. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 2000. Deffenbacher. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Bakou. Mizell.
Schwebel et al. Crowson. though. stress induced by time pressure. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. Talley. Houston. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Bettencourt. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. 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. More recently. 163). does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Groeger (2000). as another. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). such as TAPB. (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. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. the display of aggression (p. rather than a cause of. Ellis. Snyder. 1962). through the use of self-statements. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. However. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . lack of control over events. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. 1976. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change.
with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. It was also hypothesised. 1999. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Frueh & Snyder. Elofsson & Krakau. Magnavita. Later still. (2003). James & Nahl. impatience. 73 . Lynch. Petrilli. McKee. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. that the total amount.6 2. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. 2. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. indirectly. aggression. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. al. Rice. Miyake. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. In the present study. 1999). Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1981.6. Karlberg. Carbone..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. Undén. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Kumashiro & Kume. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Williams & Haney. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 2006). 1985). Blumenthal. Bettencourt et al. insecurity about status. Deffenbacher. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. 2001). 2006. 2000. on crash and injury occurrence. 1998. Sani. Kamada. Narda. Thurman. 1999. competitiveness. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. and specific content. Sato. 2002.
the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Consoli. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. gender. was driving frequency. driving style. (1998).2 times more likely to have an accident than others. socio-professional category. where Type A drivers were 4.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). for instance. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). category of vehicle. Nabi. In none of these studies. Zzanski & Rosenman. Chastang. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Karlberg et al. alcohol consumption. 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. focused on the time urgency component 74 . traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. 1989. however. 1979) and number of accidents. 1990). Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. age. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. West. 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. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. In a correlational study of British drivers.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. studied police officers in Italy. Raikkonen. Chiron. similarly. but not with accident risk. Nabi et al. however.
Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. 2. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Miles and Johnson (2003). only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. 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. At the same time. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. Glass. In a subsequent study. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. Gender.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. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). 1977). on the other hand. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). ethnicity. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.6. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. then use of the Type A/B 75 . with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Of the four BIT factors. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. 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).
In neither of their studies. To the author’s knowledge. They argued that it would be preferable. 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. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. though. 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. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. 13). aggression and the amount and content of 76 . the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. that are measured by the BIT scale. Specifically. including gender. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. although ethnicity. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. Similarly. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. hopelessness. locus of control. driving experience. At the present time. ethnicity. In the present study.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. on the other hand.
since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.hostile automatic thought. 1986. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 2005. 1993) and. Miles & Johnson. Nabi et al. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 2003. 1985). Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. externally-focused frustration. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. 77 . Further. West et al...
aggression (see Figure 3. each study explored the extent to which demographic. In Study 1B.2). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 1B and 1C. 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 3.1). 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. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. 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. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. 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.3). the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. with the addition of a third psychological variable. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. In Study 1C. Then. 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.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
For each of the five studies undertaken. For the purposes of the present research. 3. overlapping and ambiguous. a separate score for internality (I). motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 3. but not chance. In the present research. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger.2. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. 1999). It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 25). Lester and Trexler (1974).5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).2.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. cognitive. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. a thought process that expects nothing. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . Weissman. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 1994). affective. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.
(b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. The effects of participants’ total aggression. Lynch & Morris. 3. were also investigated. Bergeron & Vallerand.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. frustration. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. through fighting. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Oetting. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. 2003. 1996). Deffenbacher. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 1957. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . social alienation and paranoia. hitting or interpersonal violence. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. and.2. expressed through the presence of irritability. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. 2005). Specifically. Vallières. In the present research.
driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. the BIT score. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.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. 3. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. and.g. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP).(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . hit or kill another individual. (c) revenge – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to take some action against another individual to get even for a perceived wrong.. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. 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. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. not allowing others to merge or overtake. characterised by excessive impatience. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken.. competitiveness. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. frequent lane changing. 1998).2.
Then.. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). In the resulting measure of this variable. In the resulting measure of this variable. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. and. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 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. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. the influence of driving experience. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. travel frequency.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported 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. to the extent of inattention conditions. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. Then.2.3. 88 .3 3.them (e.g. three demographic variables (driver age. 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. in Study 1A. while driving. 3.2.
the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.3. travel frequency. Then. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. three demographic variables (driver age. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency. In this study. 3. Then. the influence of driving characteristics. Figure 3. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. hopelessness. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the influence of driving characteristics. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3 Study 1C In Study 1C.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Then. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . In this study. Figure 3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In Study 1B. Finally.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. Then.
90 . First.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. In Study 3. In Study 3. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. and (b) taxi experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. 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. Then. Figure 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 3. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.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. Finally.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. This was justified for three reasons. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. Then.3. Figure 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Figure 3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. 3. the influence of experience. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.
4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash 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.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . Third.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. 3.2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Second.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H184.108.40.206: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.
3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: 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 H4.1.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.Table 3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.
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. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.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.Table 3.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. within a 14-month period. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.5 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.5.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. 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. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.g. while participants were driving.time when they travelled. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. during a point to point trip. In all cases.5..2 Research Instruments 3. by postal mail. 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. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Stokols. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. in the case of Study 3 participants. 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. 1978). Data collection took place within the taxicab. For inclusion in the study. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Stokals & Campbell. Novaco.2. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.5.
such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. On each form.2. as indicated in table 3. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. with a coefficient alpha of . based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.80.” “On a clear highway. Table 3. Usurpation of right-ofway No.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.” “While travelling to work (or to school). Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.” II. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Freeway urgency 14 III. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. In a later study. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).91) were found to be internally consistent. to school or to an appointment with someone.
96 .Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in 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 “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. 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. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.5. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to the faster. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. 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. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. 3.
1993. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.2.” “If I’m angry enough. Beck et al. verbal aggression. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. 1982. 2005. anger.3).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. I may tell them what I think of them.5. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “When people annoy me.” “When someone really irritates me.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. I may mess up someone’s work. 1996). 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. 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.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. Tanaka et al. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 1974). 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”. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. 3.5. I might give him or her the silent treatment. if endorsed.” 97 . Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.2. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “I get into fights more than most people.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.3.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Durham.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. and five subscales measure physical aggression. if not.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. or 0. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.
I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. age. Snyder et al. Williams.71 to .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. Shapiro. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.2.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. .88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 5 = “all the time”).4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. 1997.91 for physical aggression. derogation of others and revenge respectively.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.2.88 and . 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.” 3. 98 . 2000). with coefficient alpha values of . 1996). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. gender. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. 3. Cascardi & Pythress. 1997.92.” “I want to get back at this person. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.5.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.4). (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Boyd. Three factors – physical aggression. Table 3.5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .
between the two forms of the BIT.6. Levenson. BHS. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF.6 3. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. with an e-mail summary of results. Study 1C: PIF. AQ and HAT. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. Levenson and BIT scale. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. BHS. BIT scale and AQ. in random order. BIT scale. BHS. Levenson. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. In studies 1 and 2. After the briefing period. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”.3. 99 . Study 1B: PIF. upon request. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented.
with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.2 Study 3 For study 3. AQ and Levenson scales. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. For safety reasons. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. Independent-sample t-tests.5. The PIF was always administered first.3. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. analyses of variance (ANOVA). 13. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Two to four times daily. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 100 . Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. At initial contact. as well. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. BIT. 8. four female final-year undergraduate students. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. 2004). Data collection took place in taxicabs. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. 2002). 3. aged 22 to 24 years.0. rel.5. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.6. Over the course of the trip. Levenson Locus of Control scale. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. rel.
2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.Table 3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.
Table 3.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the higher the BIT level H8.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.1: The higher the Internality.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: The higher Externality (Chance).2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.
t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. 103 .Table 3. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. In the present study.7. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.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. 2000). locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. hopelessness. In the present research.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. hopelessness.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. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. 3. When significant differences were observed. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.7.
Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. 3. For instance.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).7. In the present research. In the present research. if so. second.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.3. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). Also. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. 104 . hopelessness.7. hopelessness. 3. 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 products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. In the present research.
3. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. 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. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. SEM was carried out. 3. on the other hand. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. 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. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. 710). “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.7. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted. That is. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. logistic regression. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.7. using LISREL. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. In the present research.
Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the better the model is said to fit. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. 2006. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. 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. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. In the present research. According to Marsh et al. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). including: (1) two absolute indexes. (1988). For Study 1C. 1998) – presently exists. in fact. Thus. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. (Hair et al. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . 745). 1998). p.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne..
an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. Hair et al. one incremental index. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. The 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. pp.1 Chi-Square (χ2). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). and a measure of parsimony fit.7..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. 3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 112). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.7. the ratio indicates a good fit.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. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the normed fit index (NFI). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 1998.10 indicate poor fit. 2006).7. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 3.7. an insignificant p-value is expected. 107 . the higher the probability associated with χ2. 1998).7. 2006).00 in which values greater than .7.validation index (ECVI). However. 3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. Thus.
00. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 108 . 2006).7. The index can range from zero to 1.7.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Tanaka & Huba. 3.7. the normed fit index (NFI.. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. an RMR greater than . CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.00. 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.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. with higher values indicating better fit. 3. Thus. 3.7.00 with value more than . it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00 being indicative of good fit. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. Bentler & Bonnet. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. The index ranges between zero and 1. Values range from zero to 1.00.7.00 with value closes to 1.
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. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. In such cases. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.3. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.7. Although values range from zero to 1. Mulaik & Brett.7.00. 750). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. It should be noted that. 2006. Browne & Cudeck. James. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.7. Like other parsimony fit indices. 3..00. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 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.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. in this case. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. 1994). 109 .7. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 2006). considering its fit relative to its complexity. p. Values range between zero and 1.
When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. 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. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.3. it is said to be positively skewed. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.05. In this case. 3. 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. 1976). Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 1956). then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 1976.7. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 2000). 37).7. p. in this case.
2005. 111 . 1997). Marcoulides & Hershberger. Barrett & Morgan. A commonly used guideline is that.normality of variable distributions. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech.
1 Description of the Samples Age. with a mean age of 20. 4. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. Then.4% 146 14.6% 82 15.1).5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.9% 14.1 4. 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: 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 33.6% 12.1.9% Total 441 100% 45. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).5% 6.5% 57. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.9% 23.1% 562 57. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.3% 8. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1% 121 22. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.55).6% 15.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .4% 333 62.4% 269 27.13 years (SD = 1.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 34. Table 4.1% 536 100% 54. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.5% 27.
with a mean age of 19. with a mean age of 20. 149 taxicab drivers participated.35.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 25). with a mean age of 20. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.89 years (SD = 1. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.53. range from 18 to 27). 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. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.63.5 per cent).68. In Study 3.9 per cent). range from 18 to 29). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1A. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.25 years (SD = 1. 113 . Thus.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.43 years (SD = 1. followed by Malay (27. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26).01 years (SD = 1.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. with a mean age of 20. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. In Study 2.
3% of the sample.89 20. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. Kuala Lumpur.5 114 . Table 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.19 years (SD = 11.2. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.9 2.D. 1.7 4.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.1. Johor or Perak made up 53.25 43.5 8.65 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 . range from 23 to 73).19 S.35 1.4% of the sample.1 6. SD = standard deviation 4.68 1.2 7.01 20.65.2: Age.43 19.3 11. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. The mean age was 43. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.63 11.3).53 1. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Table 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.
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 1.8 9.6 100 4.1% of the sample. Table 4.7 11.2 2. Perak or Penang made up 50.8 11.4: 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 % 13.9 0. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.2 17.6 1.4 4.7 3.8 5.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.1 9.2 3.5 14.0 10.9 7.1.7 100 4.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.4). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.9% of the sample.6 2.0 7.1.4 0. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. As the sample was 115 .
A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 2000). In the present research.5). 116 . The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. 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. 1978). 4.2 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.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.2. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.
733 .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.784 .741 .737 .890 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .781 .742 .740 .727 .702 .774 .808 .Table 4.887 .749 .906 .701 .783 .720 .810 .811 .754 .730 .786 .824 .808 .747 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .830 .798 .783 .782 .738 .788 .904 .715 .720 .740 .711 .715 .817 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .735 .772 α .703 .756 .739 .881 α .727 .827 .734 .718 .707 .782 .910 .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 .714 .
80 or above).10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 1998.805 .2.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.916 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 1998).958 . 1998). RMSEA values less than . 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.857 .4.80.929 .806 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.6. values ranging from .804 . 118 .811 . 205).802 4. Table 4.804 Study 1C . 1985). and those greater than .808 Study 2 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.803 . In Study 3. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.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 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. with minimal error variance caused by wording. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.903 .800 .807 . Byrne.801 .05 indicate good fit. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.08 to .10 indicate a mediocre fit.876 .953 .2. only Form A was used. more than .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 1998).807 Study 1B . depending on which is used (Byrne.804 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.
it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.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 .00 1.00 .097 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.96 1. and destination-activity orientation.00 (the closer to 1.097 .00 1.90.96 .047 .2. As shown in Table 4.000 .91 .97 .070 .00.00 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. RMSEA values in each case were less than .000 . If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.054 .100. it is possible to have negative GFI. and both GFI and CFI were more than . indicating good fits.074 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. freeway urgency.98 1.90.000 .7.00 1.95 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.089 .000 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 .00 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .048 .99 .98 .92 .92 1.97 1.098 .93 .077 .024 .98 .000 .000 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.99 .000 .00 .3.00 . 4.98 1.96 .00 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .97 1.99 . 1992).99 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.99 . externally-focused frustration.96 . A third statistic.00 1.00 . Table 4.061 .00 1.92 .91 .00 1.00 1.
93 .95 1.93 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).3.096 .081 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.98 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).93 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .083 .100.8.99 . anger (ANG).96 .91 .93 .93 .059 . verbal aggression (VER).95 .93 .91 . RMSEA values were less than . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).000 .052 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.91 .030 . Table 4.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .97 .93 .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).4.063 .073 .058 .92 .085 .085 .071 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.90.96 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.97 .091 .00 .95 .92 .96 .99 .92 .081 .220.127.116.11 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.
97 .94 .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 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.083 .088 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .058 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).(IND).98 .97 .3.96 .92 .98 .97 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98 .073 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.95 .98 .047 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.098 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.93 . RMSEA values were less than . and both GFI and CFI were more than .070 .2.99 .9).10). CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.97 .97 .98 .090 .070 .098 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 .92 .94 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .95 .98 . derogation of others and revenge.096 . Table 4.089 .100.96 .90.97 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .98 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .97 .081 .90.088 .055 .100.97 .98 .98 .97 .081 .025 . RMSEA values were less than .095 .92 . Table 4. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.96 .
120) 1.11: Normality Tests. 2005.085 (.260) .280) -.323 (.140) -.091) 1.192) 1.280) -.353(.105 (. In all cases.428) .140) -.256 (.280) .085) 1.195 (.140) .146(.875(.719(.140) . Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.010 (.280) .408(.190) 1.140) .920(.962 (.297 (.099) 1. 2006).219 (. Marcoulides & Hershberger.192(.126(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.280) .356 (.226 (.140) .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.280) -.351 (.280) -.085 (.297(.140) -.379(.278(.183) 1.453(.140) -.154(.099(.280) .064) 1.099(.140) .034 (.280) .280) .099) 1.140) .069) 1.656(.280) .239 (.203(. 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. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) -.280) .582(.560(.037(.106) 1..186) 1.280) -.052) 1. Table 4.140) -.805(.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.560(.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 .140) -.297(.410(.280) .107 (.280) -.05).280) .082 (.403(.022 (.140) .126(.278(.064(.094 (.204(.3 Normality.085) 1.080(.140) -.057) 1.246(.280) -.280) -.409(.4.091(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.179(. 1997)..140) -.140) .409(.280) .188(.331(.091(.280) .140) -.064(.102) 1.140) -.020 (.241(.511(.183) 1.332 (.191) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data. Table 4.140) .179(.107) 1.
160 (.256(.913(.812(.510) 1.306) -.359 (.884(.048(.986 (.417) .157) .324(.210) -.629(.057) 1.973(306) .537(.952(.022 (.210) .267) .567(.153) .154) -.053(.156(.153) .084) 1.719(.852(.219) .392(.435) -.841(.153) .266 (.219) .435) .153) -.306) .417) -.417) .187) 1.210) .807 (.279 (.006(.805 (.236(.306) -.138(.713(.306) .223 (.435) -.540(.062(.295(.423(.959 (.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 .852(.276(.052) 1.317) 1.210) .247) .131(.186(.417) -.153) -.210) .306) -.715(.911 (305) 1.153) .153) .962 (.138) 1.053(.106 (.435) -.128 (.435) -.366(.210) .153) .913 (.362(.681(.088 (.219) .001 (.110 (.277(.064) 1.209(.147(.247) 1.297 (.106(.360) .417) .306) -.375) 1.463(.153) .135) 1.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.153) .153) .321) 1.962(.478(.098) 1.435) -.822 (.567(.102) .979(.370(.113 (.259) .306) .417) -.219) -.051) .120(.219) -.104) 1.098) 1.070 (.948(.451(.417) .414(.360) .142(.210) -.153) 983(.030(.306) .219) -.214) 1.153) .417) -.919 (.270) 1.497(.271(.195 (.799(.533) .276 (.972(.469) 1.003 (.159(.426) .994(.366) 1.106(.306) -.640(.198(.210) .210) -.417) -.244(.052) 1.417) -.354 (.435) -.210) .099) 1.300(.417) -.847 (.360) .467(.338 (.915(.153) .264) .435) -.293 (.022 (.503(.007(.Table 4.306) .153) .051) 1.360) -.024 (.101) 1.128) .359 (.501(.100) .265) 1.219) .978(.443(.327 (.417) -.940(.130(.210) .306) -.147(.219) .024 (.011 (.
124 . with 44.12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 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. injury occurrence was much higher. column a). For motorcycle drivers.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.12. if so.3 per cent being hospitalised. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. However. column c). Table 4. column b). (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.12.4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.13).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.
involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.Table 4.13: 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. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 .14) Regardless of ethnic background. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.
126 . Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.4. Table 4. However. Study 1B.5. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. crash occurrence and crash injury. in Study 1B. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal.5 4. freeway urgency.15 shows means. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4. 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. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.05). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. and destination-activity orientation.17 shows means. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.05). Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. All these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1C. 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. externally-focused frustration. 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.16 shows means. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
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.76 3.15: Means.371** .23 2.209** 1 .186** .566** 1 -.306** .513** .58 .00 165.3455 .218** .08 2.04 26.405** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .818** 1 .562** -.57 4.544** -.516** 1 -.239** .147* -.5 5.533** .247** .027 1 .22 3.716** .476 .129* .435** .376** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .471** .78 .662** 1 .342** -.2691 6.69 24.036 .147* .45 6.388** .340** .416** 1 .97 43.339** .442 1 -.278** .345** 1 -.482** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .376** .211** .202** .316** .191** .201** .804** .901** .280** .88 7.381** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.231** .D.152** .246** .553** -.391** -.749** .155** .64 7.52 34.Table 4.434** .96 19.942** 1 .44 4.396** .625** .
84 7.84 5.380** .25 8 18.414** .393** .53 19.Table 4.430** .150** .5695 .236** .443** .9 12 71.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .463** .48 5.178** .407** 1 -.353** .369** .555** .06 3 2.847** .278** 1 -.366** .491** .16: Means.43 12.762** .294** 1 .331** .272** .355** .039 .343** .816** .347** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .82 7 13.195** .489**.542** .461** .9 28.91 15 27.509** .310** .254** .334** .331** .445** .240** .213** .355** .518** .584** -.099 .505** .324** .521** .279** .200** .254** .434** .669** 1 -.286* .688**.48 3.067 -.254** .335** .22 4.440**.491** .380** .382** 1 -.418** .5 6 17.338** .173* .071 .363** .444** .358** .147** .411** .602** 1 .343** .268** .157** .276** .162** .66 3.842** 1 .028 -.763** .028 .921** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.550** .337** .586** .481** .355** .401** .45 5 87.225** .167** .103 -.516** .448** .56 2 4.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .172** .003 .319** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.312** 1 -.85 9.86 6.855** .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 .213** .55 9 21.408** .403** .148* .400** .731** .41 3.275** .69 8.697** 1 .587** 1 -.50 5.520** .496** .540** .341** .438** 1 .298** .4960 17 .531** .D.140* .9 13 46.213** .462** .051 .271** .386** .779** 1 -.816** .159 -.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.342** .514** .4624 1 -.3079 .97 4 4.376** .176* .172** .452** .00 14 19.153** .378** .14 4.372** .964** 1 .013 1 .103 -.523** .515** .089 -.60 10 16.
277** .9 -.70 8.Table 4.481** .428** .075 .383** .31 3.202** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .484** .292** .120 .00 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.7 -.292** .241** .150* .402** .259** .37 6.033 .78 8.051 .422** 1 9 22.451** .804** .342** .189** .377** .230** .311** .209** .057 .49 6.05 -.81 5.227** .263** .305** .095 .288** .191** .082 .373** .69 -.264** .745** 1 7 13.199**.081 .38 5.31 -.259** .192** .277**.038 .366** .895** 1 13 26.191** 1 3 .58 9.166** .725** .404** .228** .98 4.148** .293** .355** .395** 1 11 65.534** 1 18 19.258** .70 3.166** .235** .277** 1 8 19.354** 1 5 88.70 1 2 4.151* .412** .254** .210** .747** .296** .357** .385** .422 -.294** .193**.254** .91 -.340** .413** .8 -.229** .306** .270** .199** .224**.202** .367** .103** .270** .03 5.212** .178** .324** .189** .278** .7 28.85 19.518** .069 .224** .42 3.390** .448** .278** .531** 1 10 16.392** .465** .18 -.271** .216** .106 .530** .016 .401** .446** .506** .476** .095 .203** .526** .483** .856** 1 17 43.306** .185** .307**.592** .228** .368** .86 -.162**.402** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.252** .838** .454** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .281** .64 -.545** .434** .302** .313** .80 17.-181** .221** .314** .183** .364** .181** .141* .109 .378** .151* .137* .291** .221** .308** .36 -.349** 1 16 67.192**.17: Means. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.17 -.67 7.250** .275** .268**.167** .222** .615** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .424** 1 12 18.183** .275** .174** .109 .119* 1 21 .261** .310** .218** .251** .423** .345** .210**.343** .D.230** .501 .304** .226** .379** .749** .862** .89 5.183** .502** .230 .235** .370** .139** .588** 1 14 20.11 12.343** .101**.298** .348** 1 6 16.130** .323** .456** .131* .281** .17 -.03 -.565** .219** .9 -.186** .641** 1 4 4.304** .265** 1 19 25.296** .320** .150* .110 .387** .245** .735** .97 -.364**.246** .241** .158** .52 7.508** .338** .286** .296** .516 .81 -.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 .003 .196** .076 .356** .
Similar to observed results in study 1A. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. and destination-activity orientation. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.5. freeway urgency. standard deviations and relationships between distal.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.18 shows means. 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. all BIT subscales. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. 1B and 1C. 130 . However. externally-focused frustration. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.
50 73.182* -.317** .6803 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .072 .167 .314** .349** .66 5.219** .76 48.232** .413** 1 .30 .418** .06 20.14 27.562** 1 .917 3.183* 1 .374** .165 .D.5738 8.035 3.383** .630** .269** .111 -.313** 1 .179 7.580** 1 .4966 1 .043 .200* -.55 175.081 8.367** .941** 1 .621 3.233** .428** .614** .139 .323 23.356** .212* .18: Means.192* -.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .500** .48 5.409** .264** .876** .4683 .290** . 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.415** .226** .259** .535** 1 .880 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.758** 1 .240** .325** .376** .413** .334** .750** .485 11.Table 4.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .201* .028 1 .371** -.66 1.251** .150 -.122 7.025 -.291** .
3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. 1B. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. Differing from Studies 1A. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.19. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.5. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. As indicated in Table 4. 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. 1C and 2. In this study.19 shows means. 132 . but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. However. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. standard deviations and relationships between distal. In general. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. correlations between I and distal.4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.
067 .091 .141 .06 2.286* 1 .120 .204* .240** .254** -.454** .072 .0301 .028 .166 .263** .82 11.182* -.289** 1 .08 15.261** .161 -.116 .292** .235** .194* .180** .31 8.257** .338** 1 .060 -.194* 1 .152 .84 2.604** .622** .Table 4.200* .095 .149 .88 1 .15 32.378** 1 .117 .588** 1 .82 5.19: Means.171 .117 .061 .150** .643** .070 -.020 .65 75.153** 1 .51 3.025 -. 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 12.45 19.054 .42 66.864** 1 .268** .401** -.35 11.234** .023 -.148* .197* .235** .271** .040 .373** .121 .2000 .213** .156 .225** .17 20.213** .276** .521** .128 .023 .149 .12 4.816** .324** .167** .646** .561** 1 .060 .114 .032 1 .030 .576** .109 -.255** .74 15.872** .039 .11 15.177 1 .121 .658** .13 3.275** .173* .018 -.853** .193* -.048 .240** .32 7.D.3 6.54 11. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.99 10.371** .807** .218* .013 .32 3.07 8.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .618** 1 .156 .229** .418** .112 -.4 5.10 1.151 -.106 .43 8.092** .117 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .05 3.245** .072 -.443** 1 .178** .222* .147** .091 -.404 .528** 1 .636** .236** .071 .721** .246** .103 .749** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .165 .172** .
6.102.01 B=.01 B=. These results supported H1. 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=. p<.01 B=.1). p<. p<.1.1.01. p<. p<. p<. For the destination-activity factor.180.125. p<. p<.202.01 B=. 4.034.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 B=. p<.3 inclusive.4. Table 4.01 B=.048.135.01 B=. Study 1C: B=.315.238.01 134 . p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration.20). but not destination-activity orientation. p<.278.080.095. p<.090. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.04. p<.041.120.01 Study 1C B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.01.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 B=. freeway urgency.229.01 and Study 3: B=. Study 2: B=.063.01.095. p<.01).01 B=.4 was not supported.1.146. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. These results supported H1.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. Study 1B: B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.117.063.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.1 through H1. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.172.1.01 B=. H1.01 Study 1B B=.088 p<.
Table 4. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 Study 1C B=.01. p<.064. These results supported H1.01 B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.6. p<.158. 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=.091.054.019.21). Study 1B: B=. p<.059.087.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.118. 135 .01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. p<.038.22.23 and Table 4. p<. p<.05 Study 1B B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. freeway urgency.01. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.069.140.035. p<.074.120.075 p<.165. p<.033 p<. p<.035. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. p<.01 and Study 2: B=. p<. p<.2. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01).095. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=. Table 4. p<. respectively).01 B=.24.01 B=.
41 167.48 171.22: 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<.35 155.06 19.77 165.43 20.88 28.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.01.98 33.52 25.600** Table 4.77 8.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.35 24.Table 4.31 161.32 147.82 33. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.35 4.16 3.03 25.92 157.68 26.60 185.50 28.05.82 168.32 28.64 27.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.56 175.35 33.184** 136 .64 26.29 21. * p<.30 22.89 21.98 171.44 178.15 161.25 25.73 170.25 5.
01 14.53 17.05).61 165. In Study 1B.73 157.81 167. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. * p<.05).05). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05.01).06 8.14 15. about once every two weeks (p<.52 3.73 24.88 167. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.77 16.12 161.24: 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<.25). drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (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<.01).01). and those who almost never travelled (p<.12 154.Table 4.00 16.39 19.00 14. On the other hand. In Study 1C.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. 137 . Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15.01).01.060** In Study 1A.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. In Study 2. 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<.06 160. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01).
01.55 10.437 (N.Table 4. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.80 22. However. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.S) Therefore. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.82 162.33 78.60 72.50 24.71 168.09 15.31 2. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. 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.62 10.26 10. However.55 73.25: 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<.64 24.27 14. * p<.381 10.47 5.65 73.50 184. Table 4.05.81 22.63 1.56 3.94 20. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.528** In Study 3. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .89 20. N.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.68 20.81 175.05.52 172.753* 38 48 27 20 77.26: 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<. In other words.26).316 1.37 9.97 8.58 188. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.S.31 78. * p<.920 (N.859 11.81 161.01.S.74 77.
In this case.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. ANOVA results for age.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.1 and H2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Again.6. though. 139 . however. In Studies 1A. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In Study 3. the lower was the total BIT score. 1B. Contrary to the subhypothesis.27).2. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. ethnicity and age – were investigated. In Study 2. 1B. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. 4. 1C and 2. only H2. For ethnicity. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.been predicted by H2. only H2.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.1 was confirmed.
01 F=2.2 was confirmed. 1C and Study 2.99. Study 1B t=2. t(250) = 2. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. N.05.01 F=1.68.81. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.01).53. p<.Table 4.9.01 F=8. 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<. p<.01 F=.6. p<.05. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. 4.05). p<.66.2 were confirmed. In Study 1B.S. Study 1C t=3.74. N.01 F=19. In Study 1B. however.05).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. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).12. p<. Therefore.S. N.00. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. H3.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.44. H3.98. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.05 F=11.05 F=4.S. In all studies. In Study 1A and Study 2. Study 2 t=3. In Study 1C.1 and H3. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). Externality-Chance (C).3 was not supported. N.62.562.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.01 F=1.56.01 F=9. male 140 . p<. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. In Study 3.S. p<.
462.05). Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.01). F(2. E and P scores. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.01 respectively).490.05). post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 298) = 6.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.476.370.041. 141 . all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.01 respectively.527. 1C.05 and F(2. p<. 249) = 3.05. In Study 2. p<. t(299) = 2.05.566. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05 respectively. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.01). Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05 and F(2. 299) = 3. p<. F(2.503. In Study 1A.941.05 and p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 298) = 3. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. p<. 1B.01.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 298) = 3. 299) = 5. F(2. p<. F(2. p<. 119) = 5. p<. For Studies 1A.05 respectively. t(120) = 2.
1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. so H4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 1B or 1C.1 and H5. H4.2 and H4.1. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.2. 18.104.22.168 were not supported.1. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. In addition.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.6. in Study 2.Therefore.3. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Therefore. H4.3. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2.2.3 was supported.01).079. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. that age influences hopelessness. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. p<. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3 were supported. H5. H5. In Study 1. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. H4. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. H4. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. 142 .2. However.05. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. were supported. t(120) = 2.2 and H4.1.
respectively).01 and B = .341.3.28). with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.306.290. p<. 4.01. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness. 143 . In Study 2. H6. p<.186.371.01 respectively).7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01.1. 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<. Therefore.01. p<.01 and B = . p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. H6. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.3. p<. H6.254. p<.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .354. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.2 and H6.254. were supported. In Study 1C.4.01 and B = . p<. In Study 1B.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported. was not supported.342. respectively).1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.6. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. respectively).312.2 and H6. H6. p<.239. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.6.01 and (B = .
151. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. In Study 2.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . was supported in Studies 1A. 144 . it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.141.01 B=.280.01 B=. p<.2. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01). p<. p<. p<.01 B=.05). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.01 B=.349.4.1. p<.01 B=.191.05 In Study 1A.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=.151.280. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . H7.317. p<.247.Table 4.275.01).S. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = . p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.247. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. the higher the hopelessness scores.05 B=.099. p<.01 B=.01). 1C and 2.317. p<. p<. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .153.415.05 Study 1C B=. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H7.287.01 B=. p<.254. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.05 B=.05 Study 2 B=.415. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.254.349. In Study 1C.01 B=.157. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.05).01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.157.151. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .05).01 B=.3 and H7. p<.01).200.288.278. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.418. freeway urgency (B =. p<.151. B=.01 Study 1B B=.191.141. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .275. p<.01 B=. p<. In Study 1B.232.287.01). Therefore. N. H7. p<.01). p<.153.232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.
01 B=.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. provided support for hypothesis H8.753.208.01 B=-. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.S. H8.006. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. where only H8.388.2. N. p<.05 B=.3. that the higher the subscale score for I.S.01 B=.3. 145 . that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. p<.01 B=. B=.297.01 B=.01 B=-. N. p<. p<. H8. p<.178.01 B=. the lower were mean total BIT scores. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.336. N. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.1 and H8.01 B=-. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.1.2. but not H8.01 B=-. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.S. With regard to H8. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<.4. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).625. p<.168. Table 4. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. H8.229.239. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.315.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.29).6.044. Therefore. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. B=. With regard to H8.1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<.1.339.2 and H8.077. p<.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.
Further.581.704. F=4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. F=4. In Study 1C.01 respectively (see Figure 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. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.01 and F=8. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. F=7. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.05. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.1). p<.01 (see Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4. p<.710.272. p<. p<.1).909.2). 146 . p<. =8. 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.
9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.3). 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 4.282. However.05.00 MalaysianIndian 70. p<.00 64.6.00 66.00 62.327. 1B and 1C. in Study 2. 147 . the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.034.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. F=4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B = .00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. p<. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.05. R2=. First.033. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00 68.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. multiple regression showed mixed results.444.
and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. B = .608.4).01.01. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.459. Kurtosis=-. 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 4.167.3: 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=.463.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.070. R2=.371). p<. p<. F=18.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . Residuals Normality: Skewness=.
Table 4. N.01 (see table 4.01 t=2. however.210.2.S t=1. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<.480. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.01 t=-.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.05 respectively.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.05 t=4. p<.298.164. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.820. N. p<. t= .S t=2.677. N.1.690. In both studies. p<. and t(250) = 2. 249) = 5. p<. and H9.780. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.603. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.187. F(2. In Study 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.6. N.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. However.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.30). 1C and 3. p<.467. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.31).603. p<.01 t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. the H9. With motorcycle drivers. p<.05 t=. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. t(300) = 2.Therefore. In Study 1B and Study 3.S. p<.S t=2. 4.690.01 t=4.521.032. were supported.01. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .
S. N.763.629. N.S F=10.S. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. p<.155. N. F(2. Table 4.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N. p<.01).01.561. 299) = 4. N.041. F=1.S.01).021.S. F=2. F(2. p<.521. F=22.214.171.124: 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. N.422.904.01 F=2. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S. In Study 1C. mixed results were found.S. N. 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 3.05 Study 1C F=5. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.01).432. N.01). F=2. 150 . F=4.432. N.S.S.01 Study 3 F=1.041. N.S. In Study 3. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=1. F=1.526. F=1. 249) = 10. N.077.S.567. p<. p<. p<. In Study 1B. F=.564.S.S.S. 299) = 5.804. mean IND scores of Malay. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=5.632. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.398.05. p<. N.01. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F(2. N. F=2.01 F=. F=2.
2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. However. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.3 and H11. The higher the total aggression scores. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. were all supported. freeway urgency.3 and H11. however. H10. 151 .11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. 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. H11.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H10. In Study 3. freeway urgency. In Studies 1B and 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. H11.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. only H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. externally-focused frustration. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.29). VER and IND subscale scores.4. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. 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. respectively.Therefore. H10. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. were supported.1.32). that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.2.4. Therefore. was supported. 4.
but not in Study 3.204. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01 B=. p<.01 B=. p<. B = .01 B=. the higher were total BIT scores.01 B=.428. p<. p<.545. Study 2 and Study 3. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.235.01 Study 3 B=. p<.01 respectively. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.263.121.01 B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.505. However. p<. p<.01.491. B = . p<. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. Study 1C and Study 3. respectively. p<.324.483.380.565.01.183.01 B=.461. p<. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.385.01. p<. p<.01 B=. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.263.05 (see Figure 4.387. p<.01. p<. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. F=3.01 respectively.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.05 B=. and B = . 1B. respectively.01 B=. B = .5). 1C. Study 1C and Study 3.216.S.438.370. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . p<.01. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.520.Table 4.048. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.01 and B = .32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 1C B=. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested.370. B = . N. B = . p<.01. but not in Study 3.229. B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. B = . N. p<. Similarly. Also. p<. p<. p<.05 B=.540.S. and B = . p<.01 and B = .881.
Study 1C and Study 3.6. F=81. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 46. p<.929.131. respectively. and B=-. In other words.172.01. p<.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. Kurtosis=-.100.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.297. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale. R2=. p<. The moderating effect of I was significant. R2=. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 IndianMalaysian 48.01.05. F=100.01.516. Kurtosis=-. p<. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 42.076. B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.961.00 44.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.645.362.271. B=-.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.003.01. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. p<. for Study 1B.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.6.316. R2=.12.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.015. p<. F=78.01 respectively. F=71.360. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. B = .01.271.01 and B = . p<. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p<. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.6. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.01. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Kurtosis=.694. respectively).088. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .897.01.704. Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=-.015. respectively). F=91.6). Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.507. F=94.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.069.606. In Study 1B. R2=. p<.387.12. R2=. R2=. p<.01. R2=.794. Kurtosis=-. p<. R2=. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.297.431.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.369.297.117.271.109.757. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. R2=.
that the internality.01 respectively. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions.significant. and H12. p<. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. H12.2.332. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. and the moderation effect was not significant. B = . hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.302.1. p<.3.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . H12.7). Therefore.01 and B = .
01).05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. H122 and H12. F(2. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 248) = 3. 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<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. Only H12.01. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. 249) = 4. 156 .263. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. 249) = 5.6. However. p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. p<.314. p<. Also. and about revenge F(2. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.343. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. p<.05.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.885. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01. t(250) = 3.279. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.3. t(249)=2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. with the sample of taxicab drivers.01 but not on about the derogation of others.05).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. 4.737.1. p<.05). p<.
were supported. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.01. p<. B = . p<. were supported.3.01 and B = .2. H14. the higher the total HAT scores.307. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.413. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. p<.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. B = . B = . H13. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.2 and H14. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.Therefore.01. freeway urgency.01. Therefore. was not supported.3.1 and H13. 4.6.379.01.364.01. externally-focused frustration. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.192. p<. This means that. respectively. was partially supported. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. H14. p<. B = .01. p<. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.224. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. B = . H13. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.01 and destination-activity orientation.277. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. This means that.394. on total BIT score were also tested.1. the higher were total BIT scores. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. was supported. 157 . (that thoughts about physical aggression. B = . p<.
8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. In other words.002.085).565. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297.188.8).4.911. p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. p<. F=55.01.6. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.05. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . Physical Aggression and Revenge. p<. 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. F=57.072).01.297. 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 4.809. R2=. Kurtosis=. B = . Kurtosis=. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.-554.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.013.
F=59. 159 .1 and H15. However.01. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.01.Aggression was significant. p<.207.294.246.475. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.33). H15. H15. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. 4.01. p<.297. were supported. was not supported.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.2. B = . R2=.026.092). was supported. p<.6. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kurtosis=. B = .
S N.S N.S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.2.Table 4.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S P.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S N.S S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S.S S S S S N.S S N.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.S S N.S S S S S S N.S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S P.3.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.S S S S S N.S N.S N.2.S N.1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.1.S S S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 3 P.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S N.2.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.1.1.2.S S S N.S N.S 1C P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.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.S 160 .2.S S S S S N.S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S P.S N.
3.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.S= Not Supported.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S 161 .1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.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 S S N.S S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S 3 N.S P.S N.3.S N.S P.S P.S S S N.S N.S S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S S N.S N.S 1B N.Table 4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7. P. blank=Not Applicable N.S N.S 2 N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: 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 have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S P. N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.
S N.S S S S S P.Table 4.S S N.S= Not Supported.S 162 .3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S= Partially Supported. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S S 2 3 P.S N. N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S P.S S S N.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. P.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.
freeway urgency. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.96 .00000 . two were worthy of further examination.96 RMSEA . AQ. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.05522 . BHS I. Hopelessness (BHS).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. Hopelessness.093 . Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. freeway urgency (F2). This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.93 . F3.00000 .00111 . P. Externality Chance (C).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. HAT Proximal Factors F1.93 . F3. F3. F4 F1.02 d.97 . 163 .1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.060 Note: Internality (I). 4.00126 . F4 F1. (2) usurpation of right-of-way.068 . P I. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. BHS. AQ. e.087 .93 . C. Externality Powerful-Other (P). These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. Aggression (AQ). AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). C. F3. C. P. Table 4. P. F3 F1. F2. F2.7.102 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. C. F2. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.045 .90 110.g. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. AQ I. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.4.97 63. F2. HAT I. Study 2: motorcycle driver. F3. HAT I.34.38 100.58 35. F4 F1. F4 F1. F2.80 104. P. BHS. C. P. AQ. F4 χ2 49.f. C. F2.00000 . 2002).
GFI=. For Model C6. d.91.29 and . subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.045. Externality (Chance).99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.f.51 and PGFI=. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. For Model C6. with path coefficients = -.02.14.5.26.35. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.92) on accident involvement.97. but not as good as for C5. C6.=33. ECVI=. . 164 . To aid this discussion. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.060. . values for these additional indices were: NFI=.94. For Model C5.97. with path coefficients = -.destination-activity orientation (F4). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. GFI=.26.3.28 and . Externality (Chance).23 respectively (see Figure 4.13.92) on accident involvement.043. which are detailed in sect. . Externality (Powerful-Other). 5. AGFI=.32. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.10).10). values were: NFI=. RMR=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. of the BIT score. .96. For Model C5. An alternate model. .96. RMSEA=. RMR=.=24.48. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.42.97. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. CFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).98). CFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.f. ECVI=. AGFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. d. RMSEA=.42.043. and PGFI=.
BITF2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.045 RMR=.99 P-value = .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.005522 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* .29* Aggression (AQ) .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 . *p<.58* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.97 d.32* Externality (Chance) .92* Accident Involvement .97 GFI=.f =24 CFI=.57* Injury Occurrence .51* .79* .
02 GFI=.060 RMR=.39* .92* Accident Involvement . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .29* Aggression (AQ) .77* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.63* .50* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .98 P-value = . *p<.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.56* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.96 d.58* Injury Occurrence .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .31* Externality (Chance) .f =33 CFI=.
using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F3. HOS. F3 F1. IND.10.41 d. IND.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).73 169.91 . HAT-P. CFI=. Verbal aggression (VER). Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.66 153. F2. HAT-D.080 .93 .94 169.081 . HOS.66).65 and .f. 167 . ANG. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . Hostility (HOS). the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. Aggression (AQ). Angry (ANG). It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT).f. F2.35). ANG.91 .In addition. F4 χ2 108.80) on the accident involvement. HOS. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). IND. F2. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HAT-P. HAT-P. F4 F1. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. freeway urgency (F2). GFI=. RMSEA=.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. VER. VER. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-R PHY. HOS.084 . HOS. IND. ANG.=61. ANG. F2. F2. F3 F1. F4 F1. F3.078. HAT-D.00111 . ANG.91. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-D. F3.00000 .91 .00000 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). path coefficients = .13 respectively.66 131.00000 GFI RMSEA . HAT-R PHY. d.00000 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HAT-R PHY. HAT-D.95). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.41. Indirect aggression (IND). IND PHY.084 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.92 . HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. VER. HAT-P.
11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.000 N=252 RMSEA=.83* .63* Indirect Aggression .91 d.41 GFI=.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .95 P-value = .f =61 CFI=.29* Hostility .69* Anger .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .61* . *p<.65* .80* Accident Involvement .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.62* .66* .078 RMR=.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .72* .58* .05 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .
062 Note: Internality (I).f.94. BHS F1.65 and . BHS I. d.4. Externality Chance (C). Hopelessness (BHS). C.98).06722 . the participants were motorcycle drivers. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. 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=29.95 . path coefficients = -. CFI=. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). P.7.2 Study 2 In Study 2.f.86 23 28 23 . F3.94 . GFI=. C. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F3 F1.66) on the accident involvement. F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.17631 . C.047 .12 d. F3. P.047. F2. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F4 F1.12). P I.058 .=28.07580 .94 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2.33 33. p-value GFI RMSEA I. Externality Powerful-Other (P).12. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. RMSEA=. 169 . freeway urgency (F2).36).80 respectively (see Figure 4. F4 39.
83* BIT3 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.99 P-value = .57* Internality -.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .65* Externality (Chance) .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .047 RMR=. *p<.88* Crash Occurrence .89* .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.95 d.f =23 CFI=.78* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.12 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .70* BIT4 .
F2.06743 . RMSEA=.061 Note: Internality (I).079 Injury Occurrence I. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. C. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F3. C. AQ F1. but not Externality. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). path coefficients = -. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.027 I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.f. F2. AQ F1. AQ F1. F2. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. P Proximal Factors F1. Hopelessness (H). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. GFI=. CFI=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Internality and AQ.95).95.20 and . C. freeway urgency (F2). AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.03084 . F3.f.13). have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).00524 .82 28 . F3.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.94 .93 .4. P.3 Study 3 In Study 3.40) on the accident involvement.7.35265 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.22 23 .=21. 171 . Externality Chance (ExC). C.39. F4 50. the participants were taxi drivers. I.061. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).20 respectively (see Figure 4.59 17 . P. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. d.95 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F3. 37. F2.37).39 21 .97 .
BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.39 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .061 RMR=.f =21 CFI=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 d.95 P-value = .20* Externality (Chance) .39* Internality -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.61* BIT4 .63* BIT3 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.74* -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.13 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
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.38). Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. and. 2 and 3 are satisfied. 4.8. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).4.39). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 4. consistent with path analysis results. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. Therefore. 173 . BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Table 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.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. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.
8.40: 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. Table 4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. where the 174 . Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.40).8. 1B and 1C. in Studies 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.41). behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.
With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . For taxicab drivers in Study 3. Table 4. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1C vs.Table 4.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.162. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(421)= 7.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <. Study 1B vs. 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. p <.665.993. p <.01.426.01. Study 2: t(372)= -3. p <. p <. 176 . Study 1A vs. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).05. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.442. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1B vs. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.837. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3.663. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.01. Study 1A vs.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.01. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs.9.
9.433. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -6.261. “freeway urgency”. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1C vs. p <.747.01.837. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01. t(253)= 8. t(986)= 30.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.861. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.926.977. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 3. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -5.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.775. p <. and to injury occurrence. Study 1B vs. 4.402. p <. 177 . automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01. t(986)= 6.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.186. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. respectively. p <.01.01. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(986)= 37. p <.614. t(986)= 34. Study 1B vs. Also. p <. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 7. Study 2: t(372)= -7. t(986)= 5.01.484.801.687.9. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <. Study 1C vs.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01. p <. p <.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <.577. p <.01. p <.200.01.01.704. and t(986)= 35.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. t(253) = 2. p <.211.01. 4.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. Study 1C vs.01.
t(253)= 8. p <. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 11. t(253)= 35.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. respectively. t(253)= 8.01. t(253)= 31.982.977. p <. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.016.01.01.737. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.946.567.01.01. Also. 178 . p <. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.881. p <. p <.01and to injury occurrence. “freeway urgency”. and t(253)= 37. p <.
exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Often. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. including gender.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). upon examination. 1993.2. 2. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. They found gender. 1995. 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. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. multi-factorial perspective.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . 2002b). (1993). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Evans. 1991). al. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. In an earlier study. freeway urgency. Elander et. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Elander et al.1).4.
alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Further. except with taxicab drivers. 1991).total BIT score and component scores. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. As a result. 180 . One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. All too often. In the contextual mediated model. the proximal variable. if different. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. In the present research. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. In other words. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. BIT. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. But findings were more complex than that. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. hopelessness. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. is that factors interact with each other. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. though. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 126.96.36.199). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
5. Inclán. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. By virtue of their age and occupation. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. For taxicab drivers. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. there are other possible influences. SD=11.1.1 months. SD=. In the present study. SD=131.63. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.01years. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . SD=22.2 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. For taxicab drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.6 months as licensed drivers. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. and 36.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.3.hierarchy. SD=1. respectively). Of course. Because of occupational demands.53. 20. SD=1. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.2 years. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. 5.25 years. as well.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.7 months. respectively). They were also more experienced (266.16. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.
in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. influence peddling and status-related privileges. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. Devashayam. rife with bureaucracy. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. financial matters and social affiliations are made. when compared to Canadian students. perhaps due as argued earlier. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. In an environment where career choice. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. corrupt practices. 2005). were necessary to succeed. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. 2003. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. The finding that Indian- 188 . to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. however. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. along with selfpromotion skills. spousal selection. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Carment (1974) also found.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).
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. Salih &Young. 1999. where Cheung et al. Again. 1981).5 million in 1991 to 11. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. by extension. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. an internal locus of control. as a result.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1999. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. but two possible influences stand out. as a group.8 million in 1996. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 5. 1998. 1999). Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.7 in 1996. 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. Gomez. including locus of control. 1966. Indeed. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. and.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. 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.3. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Sendut. 2002.5% annually from 9. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Nandy.
bringing them closer together in outlook. 5. Lynch. Miles & Johnson. 2001. 318). among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 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. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Dukes. Oetting & Salvatore. 2002. Lawton & Nutter. Nonetheless. Huff. Consistently. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. feeling more frustrated at external sources. by the enraged driver. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . King & Parker. 2000. Jenkins.women’s friendship patterns. more recently. Miller & Rodgers. 2008. Clayton. 2001) In the present research. 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. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Parkinson. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 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. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 2003. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2002).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.
Further.conditions. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. Finland and the Netherlands. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). physical aggression. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. during such incidents. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Petrilli et al. These effects were observed most strongly when drivers had cognitions involving physical violence toward other drivers (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out”). Oetting et al. on a journey by journey basis. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Deffenbacher. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Underwood et al. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Underwood et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. With taxicab drivers. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. (1996) and Deffenbacher. 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. Parker. 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. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. 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 . These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. The effects of aggression on behaviour. That is.. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. however. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). 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. Such responses. but not when they involved the derogation of others. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 2006). one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). In essence. in the samples studied here. as well. the world and others).. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. although still significantly. 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. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger.strongly. 1997).
has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). (2003). Downe & Loke. Language loaded with emotional content. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. Generally.are determined by chance or fate. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 401). 2004. like any other mental task.e. p. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 1987. Finally. 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. “in ergonomics. Meichenbaum. but there may be more to it than that. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1977). The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. Certainly. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. 1994. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. and particularly with negative emotion. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1990.. aggressive automobile drivers who believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others. Hochschild. 1995. or self-talk. true to operant learning principles. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. Similarly. It is moderated by cognitive processes.e.. Novaco. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1979. 193 .
1999. Trabasso & Liwag. 2005). and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. and attempting to exercise control over. Taylor & Fragopanagos. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 1997). 1993). Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Dien. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. p. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Watson & Wan.. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. hostile automatic thoughts. Stein. Performance (e. 1996. In fact. Hinojosa. 2002. 2002. 2000.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. MartinLoeches. 2004. Mercado & Tapia. 162). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. Carretie.5. Lambie & Marcel. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.g. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. aggressive emotionality. 5.Robbins. 2000. Making sense of. Martin. Tomkins.
By estimating and removing measurement error. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. p. 1998). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. or independent variables. factors represented by multiple variables. including dependent and independent variables. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 2004. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. Karl Jöreskog. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. First. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. 2004. Gavin and Hartman (2004).. or latent. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. involved in the analysis. Finally. Structural equation modelling (SEM). 195 . explain criterion. According to Williams. 2006). In addition. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. a multivariate technique. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. Hair et al. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. and perhaps most important. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. 2006). advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. who in 1970.. 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. 2000).. EQS and AMOS.434). Second. or dependent. When composing a model. 2006).
as suggested by Hair et al. Hair et al. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. SRMR. (2006). several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. etc) 196 . despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. the comparative fit index (CFI). (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. and the root mean square residual were included. In the present research. Sümer (2003) added that. when assessing the fits of measurement models. Therefore. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. TLI. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Ketchen. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. GFI. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. (2004) noted that.e. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i.5. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. the goodness of fit index (GFI). (2004) has been critical of most studies. 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.5.e. Williams et al. Shook et al. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. 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.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. CFI. Shook.
CFI. 1998). 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.g.. Maruyama. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 5. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . Md-Sidin. Hair et al.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Fit index values (e. GFI. 2001. 1998. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2006). It is argued here that. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250.. significant p-values can be expected. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 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.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. As a general rule. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. RMSEA lower than . This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem..90. At the same time.In the present research. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2006. 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. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. Sambasivan & Ismail.5. CFI and CFI) greater than . 2000). so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Structural equation modelling should.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 2001.
However. Thus. 88). Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 158).1. and practical considerations (p.soundness. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. More importantly.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. There is some support for this position in the literature. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. two structural equation models. “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. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. as suggested by Byrne (2001). 1C5 and 1C6. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. statistical. In the case at hand. In some cases. stating that.3). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.10) excluded the fourth factor. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . 4.7. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. destination-activity orientation. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.
02 0. P.96 1. C.97 0.48 30. Injury Occurrence 35.060 0.99 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. F2.Table 5.034 97. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.91 0. 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. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.98 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.96 0. 199 . P.909 0. C. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. AQ.043 129.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 1.97 0.94 0.02 0.02 0. AQ.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.42 11. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.045 0.499 0.97 0.
the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. goodness-of-fit. However. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. 1995. 2006. in particular. Schwebel. Based on the practical advantages of including the destination-activity orientation variable within the contextual mediated model and findings of the subsequent comparative results of PGFI coefficients. Nahn & Shapiro. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. 2006). when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. based on the notion that each variable included may. For practical reasons. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. Hair et al. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.48. Manstead & Stradling. 1996). Reason. Sambasivan (2008) stated that.1).42. 200 . they should be dropped. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Parker. it is 0. farther along.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. in this analysis. but still acceptable. Storey. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. et al. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. By selecting Model 1C5. while for Model 1C6. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Kayumov. 1990.
and hostile automatic thoughts). Distal factors (locus of control: internality. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.6.28 and . Rothengatter.28 respectively). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . .1).g.35. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .45). Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 2003). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . . Sümer. crash occurrence (r = -.21). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .5.14. externality-chance.35 and .34) and injury occurrence (r = . with five distal factors (internality. externally-focused frustration. 1991. 2001. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. via BIT.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). externality-powerful other. on crash outcomes.26. In Study 1C. externality-powerful other. aggression.4.66).5. . freeway urgency. The results suggested that the alternative model. 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. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. externalitychance. for automobile drivers sampled.5. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Evans. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.
and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.25).20) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.65 and . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. 202 . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.55). 5. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .23) and injury occurrence (r = .4.24). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externally-focused frustration. which sampled motorcyclists.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. crash occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. Aggression. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. crash occurrence (r = . This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. had 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 = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). Results indicated that the first alternative model.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. externality-chance. on the other hand. freeway urgency.5.41).
the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. with the sample of taxicab drivers. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. Results indicated that the third alternative model.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. externality-chance. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. had a better fit than alternative models. to measure outcome.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. such as internality. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.6. Finally. hopelessness. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. 4. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.5. had no significant effect on BIT scores.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. via BIT.20 and .4. freeway urgency. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. for crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration.5. externally-focused frustration. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. crash occurrence. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. in turn and indirectly. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. with four distal factors (internality. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. aggression).3). for the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-powerful other and aggression). on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. externality-chance. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. crash occurrence. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other. as a result. their crash occurrence.5. For motorcyclists. However. Distal factors. 5. 203 .
however. Huguenin. To a large extent. Further.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. 204 .6 5. a total of five samples were taken. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 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. 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. 2004). 2005. 278279).6. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 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. In the present research. 2005). the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. chosen at random from taxi stands. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar.5. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Sekaran (2003) points out.
contributed the largest proportion of the sample.13 years (SD = 1. Sabah. in Malaysia.6%.In Malaysia. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. 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.55).2). Study 1C: 99. Study 1B: 100%.31.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99.2% and Study 2: 99. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. 205 .2%). Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. The most populous state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. as elsewhere. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.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. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. with a mean age of 20. Selangor.6% (Study 1A: 99. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Since. Table 5. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.
576 2.1 (7) 8.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.260. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.500 1. 206 .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) 7.000 2.0 4.818.188 1.2 7. Table 5.2 (5) 0.8 6.200.396.Table 5.387.150.000 1.286 1.9 (9) 7.2 11. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.000 2. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.503.000 1.000 Per cent of national population 26.300. Table 5.6 5.4 5.000 215.500.3 (12) 11.674 1.2 3.6 6.5 (4) 4.6 2.0 12. 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.5 (8) 3.887.8 (6) 6.000 3. in this case.6 (10) 7.9 9.004. For that reason. Not all states have the same number of drivers.2 (11) 12.2 (13) 11.7 (14) But. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.6 0.880 3. In both cases. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.0 8.100.2 (1) 3.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.7 (2) 2.807 733.
88 3.163 10.98 0.496 187.920 181.90 5.19 3.251 324.93 0.774 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 12.606 24.68 7.35 4.88 2.19 4.588.36 8.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.63 207 .029 273.24 2.93 9.46 8.96 3.026 10.28 3.428.84 11.104 6.725 70.20 12.27 14.093 5.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.70 12.89 3.13 6.490 525.70 3.467 25.144 12.735 165.92 25.212 39.85 1.617 10.34 11.37 3.635 1.22 17.16 2.198 156.55 7.34 3.50 29.003 10.Table 5.24 0.45 9.4 4.170 13.785 393.19 7.137 698.561 1.91 2.041 92.97 12.600 135.064 9.75 4.230 266.76 3.768 6.43 2.05 2.
221 36.20 15.93 7.46 5.22 3.144 12.28 3.88 2.722 255.029 273.467 25.49 12.617 10.76 3.03 4.63 11.66 11.10 9.064 9.288 444.026 10.38 4.37 3.36 8.64 2.104 6.59 12.615.46 14.35 4.27 14.679 90.02 7.989 6.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.003 10.75 5.33 4.958 % Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.656 821.606 24.63 13.43 2.45 2.98 0.4 4.768 6.727 161.49 0.283 770.64 1.59 1.305 276.14 7.92 25.992 776.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.995 233.02 10.856 310.112 347.88 3.74 208 .82 9.212 39.725 70.93 9.Table 5.79 13.15 5.170 13.133 705.48 1.38 0.561 1.
were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. At least on these dimensions. was representative of a high risk driver population. at least. it can be argued that they were. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.3 and 5.814** 1 .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . Table 5. 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.903** .824** . 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.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .Table 5. participants came from – or. Of course. it is possible to say that sampling.4.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.
(1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . the data has to be disaggregated. in studying driving behaviour. accident distributions by age. Exposure. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. Rothengatter. 1998. as in other psychological research. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. violations and accidents should be linked together. however. However. e. 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. The problem. 1979). 1998. Much important data is available in official statistics. 2001). The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Hatakka. demographic factors. Again. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Elander et al. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Keskinen.. unless the variation within the group is very small. We can also get rough data of exposure by age.g. accidents. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. attitudinal factors.6. 5. 296).
therefore. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. 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. A further methodological problem occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. In future studies. the more information is lost through memory lapses. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. for instance. 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.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. combined interview and observational methods. Particularly.. 1996). in studies of driving behaviour. 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. though. as well. Yet. 5. blood pressure. the longer the time period for data collection.. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. The assumption.6. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. Visser and Denis (2004). heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. 13). 211 . In the present research.g. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. muscle tension. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al.g.
Unfortunately. 5. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. there is a certain imprecision to the measure.In the present research. Mercer.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. First. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. as well.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. 1999). participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. and the hypothesis (H2. 1997. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 1971). and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s.6. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 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. 2002). Second. 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. individual standard. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables.
Often. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 1982). p. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. Kahneman. but not always. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 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. 2002). 2003). in other words. 1973. 1974). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 2004). 2008). Specifically. But. eventful or recent. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 1993. Wood & Boyd.. Slovic & Tversky. 213 . it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 1993). but because they are inherently easier to think about. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. although this has not been firmly established. 121). 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. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence.frequency that were used in this research. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. frequency or distribution in the world (p. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 2003. 181). In much the same way. 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. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. because they have taken place recently. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated.
during periods of low traffic volume. road conditions. (2003). it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. 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. asked participants to record the time of day. Of course. with adequate street lighting and hevily-enforced speed limits is not the same as driving the same 30 kilometres at night on a remote expressway at higher speeds. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. 1991). but training participants in standardised record-keeping. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. for example. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 .. in their studies of roadway aggression. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. where driving histories generally include lengthy. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. 2000). Similarly. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. on one hand.In the Malaysian environment. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. 2001) . Finally. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Sansone.
In addition. categorical perceptions of driving frequency.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. Summala. 2004). Ranney. 2002. Further research is required. To summarise. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. It was felt. 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. selfreported measure used here. 1991). 5. have high information content. 1994). 1985. over-arching theory (Rothengatter..7. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.g. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. The function of useful scientific theory is to provide an explanatory summary of facts pertaining to related phenomena and to predict events that are associated with them (Huguenin. 1997). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 .studies undertaken. during the study design process. Michon. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 2005). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 2005). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. are testable and contain no contradictions. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. Good theories are simple. In the present research. 2004).7 5.
the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. or represent processes. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. in particular to structure data. The answer is probably not. stating that. check facts. 1997. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. Hauer (1987). if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. 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”. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. 294). at times. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. if they are modest in ambition. on the other hand. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. p. 32). 94).patterns of relationships. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. often in graphical form (Grayson. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. Grayson (1997) agreed. The answer to this question is possibly yes.
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.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. hopelessness. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 2. 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. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).3). This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. for instance. 95-96). In this case. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. and if they are resultscentred (pp. 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 217 . it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. 304). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 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. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. who argued that. Yet. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. In the present research. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma.
extraversion.. According to Ranney (1994). Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. not on everyday driving. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving.4). conscientiousness. 5. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. With several exceptions. openness. The contextual mediated framework.3. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. for instance. 2005) were included as distal variables. While the present research 218 . as defined by Grayson (1997). … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. 2003). The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. depression. sensation seeking (Sümer. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. while still very much a model and not a theory. much current research.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. psychoticism. 2.7. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. crash-free driving. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. anxiety. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.
is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. 219 . should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Conversely. 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. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. 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. On the other hand. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. or at least to react more slowly. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general.did not test any of those theories specifically. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. They argued that locus of control. Within their proposed conceptual framework. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. Following this reasoning. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. no matter how reliable a safety device. As a result. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.
consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. 220 . though. could be screened out. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 2005. scarce resources for screening 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. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. 2002.7. 1996).. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.3 Driver Selection. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. once identified. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 2004). task capability (Fuller. Typically. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Gidron & Davidson. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Summala. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Christ et al. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Specifically. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. 1996). external locus of control and hostile attributions. al. 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. 1982). 1997. 5.In the present research. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa.
the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). World Health Organisation. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.4. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1961. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1957. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. Unlike 100 years ago. At the same time.4.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. 1957). 1). and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.7.5. for the last fifty years.4). the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.7. or legal intervention.7. 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. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Slinn. education. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. From this has emerged the growing 221 . teams of humans. 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.
These have been applied to in-car. Sadano. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. for instance.6). In the case of LKA. 2003).6). there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. At the same time. Murazami. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 222 . Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. or the adaptive automation concept. Suda & Ono. Maggio & Jin. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. 2001). 2005). Stough. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. (Bishop.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. 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. 2001). Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. depending on environmental factors. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe.
traffic 223 . was associated crash outcomes. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE).6). Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Richardson & Downe. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 1999. 1993. Parsons. 2003. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Ulrich. Brown & Noy. Black.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Herzog. 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. 2000). The present research also found that freeway urgency. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. in particular to pursue environmental. 2004. 1998). This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 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. Tassinary. changes in traffic speed. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 1997). Fountaine and Knotts.
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. however. however.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. p. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. questions of alternative urban structure. Dietze. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 1991). journey purpose or other human factors. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Probably. 309). engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 1996. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. Proctor. 1996. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. 224 . 1992). and whether this information varies according to the situation. inexperienced drivers.
transitions for. 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.Table 5. etc. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. infrastructure. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. 225 . and likelihood of. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. lane road conditions. departure warning. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. “rumble strips” in expressways.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).1. keeping. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. – 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. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. Hi H 1. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.
deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. are travelling.1. to in-vehicle display terminals. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. than the safety standard.1. H 1. 226 . ACC systems provide modifications.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. the host vehicle. including those in adjoining lanes.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. point. Radar.. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. traffic lights) safe.(continued) H 1. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. generally pilot”. the systems intersection modification. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. 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. 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.
227 . The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. signs with calming or vehicles.1. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. environment and other frustrating stimuli. Such devices include chicanes. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. H 1. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. “Speed tables”. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad.3 vertical displacement.
1. at least. weather-related road conditions. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. H 1.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. safety messages. This information allows drivers to avoid or.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. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. 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. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. notification of construction ahead. 228 .
They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. The present research suggests that.7. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. It suggests that. like community centres or places of worship. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. teachers or the police. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. 229 . however. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. to some extent.5. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. 73). 2001). to inadequacies in driver training and testing.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. 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. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family.4.
Second. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. 1030). They also stated. legal measures change least often. 1978. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 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.5. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The bias of false consensus. p.4. 265). was studied in a 230 .7.4 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. from the findings of the present research. or an internal locus of control. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. such as visibility of enforcement. that “Of these three approaches. however. 2007. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. N6). Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. First.
By doing so. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Reason & Baxter. Azjen & Fishbein. Ajzen. Stradling.” 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). opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 1992).sample of drivers by Manstead. 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 . The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). 2001. 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. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. is allowed to occur in a Just World. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Parker. 498). 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 1991. on the other. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. after all.
it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). 232 . By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.drivers’ decisions to adhere. or not adhere. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations. Similarly.
gender. as proximal to the crash outcomes. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. as expected. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. A contextual mediated model. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 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.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. it was concluded that driver experience. Sümer. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. 2003. age..g. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Iverson & Rundmo. Wállen Warner & Åberg. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. locus of control. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. Sümer et al. 2005. ethnicity. In doing so. In the present research. hopelessness. 233 . 2002. Results have indicated that. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors.. when risky.
Hoyt. In most cases. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. However. and accident risk (e. This is Of the variables studied. 2003). Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’.. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 1982). 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . Harrell.In the current literature. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1995.. 1974). 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. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. it is argued here. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. Montag & Comrey. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. like Brown and Noy (2004). 1986. task capability (Fuller. 1987). Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge. the best fit usually implies the best model. 1973). or external locus of control. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. In the present research. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. as well as statistical grounds. Further. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors.g.
including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). a multi-disciplinary approach was used. they 235 . road engineering and ergonomics. 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. However. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. Huguenin. Groeger & Rothengatter.g. cultural anthropology. 1998. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. Rothengatter. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. Several authors (e. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. 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. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. in combination. For example. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic..aggression were observed. 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. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. 2005. as well. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.
regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. 313).form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 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. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. educational and enforcement spheres. Indeed. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. management. In the present research. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. injuries and death. 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. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. 236 .
Psychological Testing and Assessment.A. 169-177. Radin Umar. M. Journal of Safety Research. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. P. H. and Anurag..H. S. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.  Abdul Kareem. L. and Kulanthayan. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. (2002). Mohd Nasir. M. Puzzles & Irritations. A. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Drinking and driving: intention. T. Bahrain.. 38(5).R. 237 . L. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). (1979).  Adolphs. 289-296. Subramaniam. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. Accident Analysis and Prevention.B. 25.H. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  af Wählberg.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. 12.  Ahmad Hariza. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.  Abdul Rahman. K. 581-587. 473-486. N.  Åberg. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 10(2). Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 35.  Aiken. and Law. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 5. A. (2003). A. (2005). Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. (2003). 31-39. (1993).. 1867-1874. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors.  Abdullah. and Pederson. H. Third edition. P. (2003). A.S..E. R. individual crash level approach. (2002). MY: Pearson.  af Wählberg. (1999). Petaling Jaya. R.. (2007). Crash data analysis: collective vs.T.E. Musa. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Mohd Zulkifli.
Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. (1987). 50(2). (1991). Edwards. Journal of Sleep Research. gender and early morning accidents. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 7. Bell.  Armstrong. I. J. 623-633. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. (2001). Learning.105-110. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study.J.) European Review of Social Psychology.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. A. 187-195.G. S. (2003). In Kuhl.J.  Arthur. W. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. W. E. Ajzen.A. and Kerrich. J.H. 238 . Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. Nature and operation of attitudes. 303-313. Day. and Kecklund (2001). T. In Stroebe. Human Factors. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. and Haigh. 33(3). (1985).D.  Ajzen. (2001). T. and Hewston.  Åkerstedt. Tubré. I. (1997). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior.  Ajzen. C. J. J. I. B. and Fishbein. 47. Personality. and Tubré. 291-307. M.  Armitage. A. (2005).T. Age. 179-211. S. J. (2004).. A. I. 22(3). 52. Biometrics.  Archer. M.  Amin. (Eds. 23. Women’s Studies International Forum. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics.. (1952).  Ajzen.E. 404-415. and Beckmann. 10. Social. Annual Review of Psychology. 27-58. The theory of planned behaviour.C. (Eds. Current Psychology: Developmental. London: John Wiley & Sons.. and Christian.  Arbous. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 10(6). 340-342. M. Aggressive Behavior.
and Carbonell Vaya E. and Dischinger.. S.D. 34.F.  Baron. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.  Austin. Arthur. B.  Ballesteros. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. P. (1991). F. (Eds.-E. and Tortosa. P. R. R. Wilde.S. (1994). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Aschenbrenner. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers.C. M. Manila: Philippines. strategic and statistical considerations. and Alexander. and Biehl. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. (1986).31-42. In Rothengatter. 2(4). (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. and Kenny.L. When hope becomes hopelessness.A. M. (1998). Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. (1997). Barrett. (2005. 2007 from http://www.  Aylott. and Tortosa. 21-30). D. and Carson.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (Ed. P-E.A. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. 89-105.M. 279-284. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. K. 239 .  Barjonet. J. 51(6). (2002). Groningen. 4(2). Retrieved April 4. R. Boston: Kluwer. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). Human Performance.  Barjonet. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.  Bakri Musa.M.V. R. October 18). (2001).bakrimusa.  Asian Development Bank (2005). W. 231-234. T.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. F. 1173-1182. In Barjonet.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.-E. G. 34. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. 14-29). In Trimpop. NL: Styx. GJ. (Eds...
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.E. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (1987b).T.T. 5-37. 218-229). A. Kovacs. Weissman. G. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.F.K. Lester. P.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. M. and Trexler... Hartos. and Simons-Morton (2002). The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. A. Palliative Medicine. (Ed. Health Education and Behavior. Psychological Bulletin. Theory: the necessary evil. E.. R. 149-178).  Beck.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. (1993). J. and Loftus. 42  Becker. In Rubin. In (Flinders. and Weissman. (pp. 234-240. R.T. (1976). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. 19. Beck.M. K. A. and Steer. (1996). L.. Cognitive therapy. A. J. A. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.T. (1980). (1999). 234(11).H. 1(1).  Belli.T. 240 . 88..G. (1987a). and Mills. E. (Ed. D.A. 73-84. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. 1146-1149. D. New York: Brunner/Mazel. New York: Teachers College Press.  Beck. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. A. A.T. A.  Benzein. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.  Beck. Journal of the American Medical Association. and Bonnett. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.S. 157-179). (1975). and Berg. D. A.G.J.F. The level of and relation between hope.T.  Beck. (Eds. 29(1).C. New York: Meridian. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.  Bentler.  Beck. (1993).C. A.  Beck. (1974). 588-606. D. Cognitive models of depression. Hostility and Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. (2005). H. In Zeig.  Beck.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.
(2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. H.S. March 12). Malaysian National News Agency. T. 751-777. 472-481  Binzer.A. Managing the high costs of road deaths. McKee. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. B.  Bettencourt.  Bernama. Accident analysis and Prevention.com. S. 15(1). 313-322.E. (2001). (1984). and Shimmin. Ben-Zur. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.  Bridger. (1994). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. M.  Boyce. 241 . Williams. Talley. K.php?id=185148. 37-40. 132(5)..  Bina. Psychological Bulletin. Introduction to Ergonomics. New York: Routledge.S. S. 43. Graziano. New York: McGraw Hill.  Blasco. Applied Ergonomics. J. F. 39-55.A. 37.. (2006).J. (2006.D. R.  Blumenthal. T. M. E. (1995). Applying Psychology in Organizations. A.B. 34(1). and Geller. 44-51. Stress and Coping. 391-399. 95-104. (2002).bernama. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. R. Retrieved March 30. and Valentine.  Boff. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. J. 53. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.C. 45(1). and Haney. 38(3). Applied Psychology: An International Review. Journal of Personality Assessment.  Blacker. and Bonino.my/bernama/v3/printable. Psychology and road safety. 2007 from http://www. (2006). F. A. Benjamin. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. Anxiety. (1981). D. R... Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity..
(2002).  Brown. I.J. Briggs.W. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. D.  Brown. 4(4).W. and Cudeck. N. C. E. In Rothengatter. (2000). R. 18(2). Political Geography. and Huguenin. 21. P.  Burns. 27(3).  Brindle.C. 29-38  Brodsky. R. and Warren. (1997). (1989).  Bunnell. E. 24.  Brown. M. and Wilde. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control.K..S. (1982). Schlundt. W. 445-455. 9-19). (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology.E. Personality and Individual Differences. Goldzweig. W.M. G. T. (1948).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (1995). (2005). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. (1992). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Ghiselli. T. 641-649. In Rothengatter. Levine. Haliburton. 14.P. C. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.D. (Eds.G. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. I. International Journal of Educational Development. and Carbonell Vaya. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 219-241. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. Ergonomics. Multivariate Behavioral Research. I.D. T.D. G.E. 267-278. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. 345-352. R. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.C.C. observational data and driver records. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators.  Brown.. 20-23.  Brown. 242 . (Eds. I. R. 37(4). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. 32(1). Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. and Noy.S. 318-330. 24(1). 105-124. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Browne. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. (2004).
M. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. Multiple perspectives. 290-299. Gonzalez. 35(6). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. 22. M. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.  Byrne.W.A.  Carmines. B.  Caird..P. Journal of Consulting Psychology. (2004). Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. In Fuller. J. L. (1998). G. Human Brain Mapping. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. E. L.W. T. and Warren.G.. (Eds). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.H. R. Applications and Programming.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. F.  Buss. Cohn. and Nasar. and McIver. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 63-65. (1974). M. 243 . Oxford: Elsevier Science. J. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. J.  Byrd. A. Applications and Programming. In Bohrnstedt.  Cackowski. 343-349. W. 15981613.. Mercado. O.. B. Parada. (2002). Buss. 47(15). and Cortes. J. A. and Kline. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. and Durkee.L. (2004).J. 9. E. (1981). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.L.  Carsten.. Martin-Loeches. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. 45-50. and Tapia. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. (2000).D.K. (2001). Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. (2003). T. D.F. and Borgatta. M.. Ergonomics. E. Environment and Behaviour.  Carretie. (1999).H. International Journal of Psychology. 31.M. 736-751.  Byrne. A. J. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. & Santos. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. 21. (Eds. 65-115). (1957).  Carment. Hinojosa. J.
Y. N6.  Chang.pdf 244 . Taiwan. R. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Retrieved March 31. (2000).W. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Brazil. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.F. (1996).  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. (2006). Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.ictct. The Star.-H. New York: Dell. Dictionary of Psychology. and Lim.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Huguenin.M.ghipr. Sunway Campus. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. November 12).. March 20-22.  Cheung. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). Retrieved October 15. (1985). 2008 from http://www. 41. R.G. (2007. (Eds. and Yeh. S. Campo Grande. and Nash. What are we allowed to ask.-L. Kuala Lumpur.D. and Denis.  Chalmé. 557-562. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Personality and Individual Difference.. D. R. Cheung. W. Visser. M.H. 2007 from http:www. Monash University. J. In Rothengatter. J. 61-71). Howard. F.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan.0.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.P. P. 21(4).  Cheah. T. Carver.. 109-122.  Chaplin. (2007). Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Matto Grosso do Sul.-H. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. S. Malaysia. 10(2). R. 467-477. H. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. November). Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. (2004).
33. French. Demakakos. P.. and Stiles. Kasniyah. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C. C. 1283-1289. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. E. C. 125-129. Koumaki. 28(2).. J.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.pdf  Conrad. 193-200.C.. and Ward. 431-443. 196-203. N. Time vs. M. Journal of Safety Research. N. (2000). R... Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.P. Cancer Nursing. Accident Analysis & Prevention. E. and Bukasa. (2007). P.S. Towner. N.G.  Chung.makeroadssafe.. C. B. Helmets. June). distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. and Lee-Gosselin. (Eds. Smiley. Cairns.D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S. 679-684. M. 255-274).L. )2007). and Huguenin. 2007 from http://www. Y. H. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. A. 38(6).K. and Darviri.. hopelessness and suicide ideation. 22(3). (1999).  Chmiel. London: Wiley-Blackwell. (1992).. Panosch.  Clarke. Bartle. (2005). Bakou. D. Personality and Individual Differences. (2002).. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.E. and Chan. 24(2). and Costello. 377-390).’ Injury Prevention. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. R. Tzamalouka. (Ed. 245 . Chioqueta. T. N. (1996).  Christ.D. (2004). G. Retrieved December 7. 13(2).M. A.  Chipman.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Personality traits and the development of depression. Bradshaw.  Christie. 974-981. In Rothengatter. M. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. and Truman. In Chmiel. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Lamsudin. S. 39. W.  Chliaoutaks.. V.... R. T. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.T. MacGregor. P. Ward.. Safety at work. P.
D. (1962). The Star.M. Journal of Personality Assessment.  Cozan. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Mental workload. N. 161-175). (2005). P. and Patel. In Fuller. K. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. October 18).W. 20(5).asp?id-7003.  Crittendon. and Durso. P.. F. 2007 from http://blog. In Rothengatter.thestar. 10. February 8). and van Koppen. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.A. and Santos. 10. J.  Crombag. and Huguenin. D. (1996). G. R. 263.S.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. H. and Froggatt. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. Accident proneness. N48  de Raedt. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 152-171. 98-117. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.my/permalink. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Cresswell.F. Wagenaar. 45-62. Retrieved April 5.  Davies. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. T.L. and McRae. 5(1). L.J. (2006. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. Applied Cognitive Psychology.M. (1961). P. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.A. 95-104. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. 21-50. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. American Psychologist.T. 246 . (1991). 16(5). (2002).R.  Davin Arul (2005. (1995). W. (Eds.D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. Cooke. p.  de Waard.J.com.  Costa. R. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. 64. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.
S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.  Dien. and Carbonell Vaya. R. Individual differences. (1997).A. 575-590. R.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. R.L. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.  Delhomme.T. Tucson. 34. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon.B. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. J. 247 . Lynch. 333-356. Age differences – drivers old and young. 123132. (1998). and Swaim.L. (2002b).F.R. 5-17. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. R. R. C. and Meyer.L. (Eds. E. J. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. and Ameratunga. J. S. (2004). Oetting.  Deffenbacher. and Brookhuis.E. M. On the measurement of driver mental workload. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. Women’s Studies International Forum. and Morris. T. 729-730. 111-142).W. Journal of Counseling Psychology. R.E. D. J. Filetti. E.  Devashayam.  Dewar. S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. E.. E. P.L.R.  Deffenbacher. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. In Rothengatter. and Olson.S. Ergonomics. (2000). Behaviour Research and Therapy. (2003). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. L.D. (2005). Oetting.R. 14(12). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.  Deffenbacher. (Eds..C. 41..L. E. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates... E. The expression of anger and its consequences. K. Lynch. T.. P.S. Huff. 1-20.S.  Dewar.E. In Dewar.  Dharmaratne. and Salvatore.D. Tucson. de Waard. T. (1999).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. and Olson. (Eds. N.. 27(4). (2002a). 161-171). Oetting.N. Petrilli. T.. Richards. Lynch. 50(2). In Dewar. Personality and Individual Differences. P. 47. (1996).L. Lynch. 209-233). 373-393. J.. R. 28. 383-402. and Oetting. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. (2003).L. R. Cognitive Therapy and Research.R. R.  Deffenbacher. 26(1).
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences..M. 278-285). T. N. A. A. M. 263282. 1146-1158. R. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. (2001). Science & Technology.A. and Coie.. Malaysia. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). Bahar. and Ballard. Sungai Petani. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture..D. In Rothengatter.  Dobson. (1999). and Che Doi. 31. 248 .. 323-331. Powers. and Mayser. (1987).. and McFadden. M. Brown.  Draskóczy. November). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. (2003). Miller. (2007. ‘Fatalism’. 223-231).L. and Loke. J. (Ed. (Eds. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. W. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. T. H.. Social Science Journal 38.  Downe. 53. Nigeria. Knowledge transfer. Dietze.. M. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.  Dukes.  Downe.G.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. In Dorn. Jenkins. Clayton. In Khalid. Lippold. December). (Eds.a. negative emotional and risky driving.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.A. (1999). (1997).P.G. C.Y. Amsterdam: Pergamon.L. S.  Dula. Women drivers’ behaviour. Ebersbach.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Lim. L.. Kedah. 85-92). T.T. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. J. 197208.E. S.. R. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. R.R. S. 33. D. C. 525-535. (2003). locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 14(2). Mohd Yusuff. (2004.S. E. Health Education Research. C.E. Asian Institute of Medicine. and Rodgers. M. K. and Carbonell Vaya.  Dixey. Ball. L. A.L. M. J.  Dodge.
J. (2005). J. (1968).  Ellis. Lalovic. Leadership and Organizational Development. 17-26). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal.. 159165.D.M. C. Journal of Transport Geography. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Boyer. 69.. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. N. March 20-22. J. 50(13). 209-306).. (2001). Chawky. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. 113. 771-782. R. A. New York: Academic. 74. Czech Republic. In Lefcourt. Retrieved December 25.. 838-844. Annals of Internal Medicine.  Elander.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. G. (1996). R.(Ed.A. G. Kim.B.. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. C. (Ed. (1984). (1971). A. A. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.pdf  Engel. Causal ordering of stress. (1993). (2005).  Edwards. 22(4). and French D. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. G. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. (2002).L. Lesage. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Dumais.R. G.  Dunbar. 201-22. 249 .L.  Elangovan. G. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. (1962). A.ictct. H. and Turecki. Psychological Bulletin.. R. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.  Engel. In Underwood. 2007 from www.. satisfaction and commitment.. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. 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. Ménard-Buteau. 4(3). A.. 279-294. 293-300.  Elvik. Brno. West.
p. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.6bil losses yearly. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. (1995). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. Klesges. Traffic Safety and the Driver. 55). (1991).. New York: McGraw Hill. 38).  Ey. (1996). London: Medical Research Council.A. L.000 and RM5. 6(1). E.G. (1939).. E.M. and Popovich. (1929). B.S. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. 81-94.M.. (2000). L. The Star.  Evans.  Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. and Alpert. London: Medical Research Council. Hadley. 86(6). E. E.  Ferguson. J. E. 250 . S. (1986). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. 421-435. L. 784-786. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. S. G.G.M. 23(5).G. L.  Farmer. K. Herth.. N22. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Evans.  Farmer. L. (1976). Barnard. London: Medical Research Council. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Farran. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.  Farmer. 84).J. Risk Analysis. M. W. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 19-36. American Journal of Public Health. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. (1926). E. December 10).A. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. C.. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. and Chambers. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. and Chambers. 16. (1984). and Chambers. Patterson.  Evans. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.
R. 115-134. Belief. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. Attitude. consequences and considerations.A. R.  Frazier. 137-145. 63-77..  Forward.  Fuller. (1975). A. causes.  Forward. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. and Bragg. M. San Francisco. and Järmark. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. M. 12(4).E. R. and Ajzen.18(4). (2000). (2006). (2005).A. and Rosenman. S.  Firestone. R.. S. Linderholm. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. S.R. (2004). Intention and Behavior. E. (1990). Teoh. Accident Analysis and Prevention.P. August).  Fuller.T. (1986). 251 . Tix. (2007).H. Ferguson. Recherche Transports Sécurité. I. Journal of American College Health. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 207-213. 37. (1998.W. R. Journal of Safety Research 38. Journal of Counseling Psychology. and Santos.  Friedman. Cross Cultural Management. I. In Fuller. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. (2005). New York: Knopf. P. R. 77-97). 38(5). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Malays and Indians compared. 66. P. 51(1). K. (2002). R. Human factors and driving. and Barron. Women and traffic accidents. 412-426. 461-472. R. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. 289-298. S.  Fuller. The task-capability interface model of the driving process.  Finn. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology.W. and McCartt. 9. (1974). H. 47-55. J.. Accident analysis and Prevention.  Fontaine.A. B.  Fishbein. and Seiden. A. and Richardson. S. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.
A. 58(1).  Glass. Aggressive Driver. In Rothengatter.  Ghazali. 33(6). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Journal of Applied Psychology.T. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Behavior Paterns. E. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. 13-21. 12(4). Fuller. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (Eds. and Blanchard.  Galovski. 6.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. Hillsdale. (1977). The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers.  Gidron. (1949). (2006). E.  Gomez.E. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.. 19. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Petaling Jaya.. L. (Eds.S. H. 93-96). and Carbonell Vaya. Malta. 109-128. R. McHugh. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. J. C. European Journal of Public Health.. and Pender. A.A.  Ghiselli. (2006). and Davidson. N. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Gidron. C. R. (2006). D.  Grayson. K. (1997). and Gomez. and Syna Desevilya. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. (1996).  Graham. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2003). (2008). and Hyder. 1233-1248. and Brown.S. (1999).. Mutu. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. E. E. MY: Sage. Y.D.  Garg. 252 . Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Y.E. R. N. 42(9). Gal. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 167-202). and Mahbob. D. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.B.W. 487-491.T. (1999). A. 540-546. 203-220. 16(5).C. S. Stress and Coronary Disease. E.A. 109-116. T.B. Ergonomics. Nandy. G..
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
D. 303-304. Dutton. D. Conner. (2002). H. H. N.M. Malay dominance and opposition politics.  Lee. Lawton. 177-196. Cancer as a turning point.  LeShan. Mahwah.. 377-383. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. H. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006).. Billittier.M. C. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. 253-269). pp. New York: E. (1973). H. Barrett. (2001). Moscati.G. and Morgan. 3. (Ed.B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1975). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.M. E.  Lefcourt. Applied Ergonomics. H.M. (1974). 397-401. IV.L.  Levenson.. G. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. Janssen. L. 479-490. (2005).  Leech. and Nutter.V. W.  Levenson. H. British journal of Psychology. 37. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 41.K. Jehle. G.P. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. K.J.407-423. (1976).. In Lefcourt. R.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. (1983). New York: Academic. (2002). Journal of Personality Assessment. 38. A. (1989). 262 .A.  Levenson. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. and Stiller. R.  Lefcourt. 2nd Edition. 97. H.C. A. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations.M. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Lerner.  Lenior. 659-662.. 93. Journal of Social Psychology.
. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. 2007 from http://www. (1981). (1979). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1997). Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.  Levy. 263 . Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. C. E.  Lonero. In Lefcourt.htm. D. 39(3). H. S.. K.P.S. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.M. Retrieved May 14. 36. Wu. 10. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Neighbors. 7..S. Retrieved April 5.  Lim. Levenson. (1960).. F. H-D.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.  Lindsey. 2007 from http://thestar.my/news/story. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. and Yen. March 26). 11. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. 8-9  Liverant. Hwang. 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. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp.. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. In Rothe. H. W. and Donovan. (2004). and Scodel. J. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. New York: Academic.A. (2007). 213-222.  Lonczak. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Differentiating among internality. Huang. (Ed. 125-127.com.  Loo. The Star Online.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. 15-63). (Ed. L.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Psychological Reports.limkitsiang. R. (1980). L-L. H-F.M. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 536-545. February 2). I. 59-67. (1999. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. powerful others and chance. H. (2007. M-R.  Lin. A.  Looi.P.
Watson. (1998). D. R.R.L. G. 593-597. (1986).M. 62-67. (1994. 185-217. 103.. R.P. (1995). 264 . Balla.  Luckner. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. H. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. H.L. A. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.  Massie.M.  Maakip. R. and Wan. M. Australia. (1988). 233-252). (2000). 18(4). C. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.L. Accident Analysis & Prevention. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Rehabilitation. and Jessurun. 129. 68(5). (2003).. Monash University Accident Research Centre. and Williams.  Martin. 31. Journal of Personality. (1994). W. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.  Marcoulides. (Ed.L. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. and level of education. K. (1999)..A.  Macdonald.F. 73-87. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.  Maruyama. 55(2). (1989). Malaysia. M. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Victoria NSW.M. age. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Lourens.W. and McDonald.A.. (1997).A. Quality & Quantity. of affect. S.  Marsh. J. 299313. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.W. J.  Marsh. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.28. behavior and cognition.F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 869-897. 391-411. and Balla. and Mooran. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. D. A. I. Campbell. C. Vissers.  Matthews. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. G.K. Annual mileage. 27(1). May). L. and Hershberger. In Dorn. Psychological Bulletin.L. J..R. Report No.R. P.
Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Unconscious suicides.. Hampshire UK. Ergonomics. J. (1989).P. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 71-77. (1983). (1998).malaysia-today. (1989).P. 265 . Sambasivan. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Personality in Adulthood. Waylen. Beresford.E.  Md-Sidin. (1977). 9.  Meichenbaum. Perspectives Psychiatriques..R.D. I. D. [ in press]. and Brown. L. Risk Analysis.P. Ismail.. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (2007). A.W.htm  McConnell. November 6). 649-663.  McKenna. Psychological Medicine. Duncan. 29.  McMillan.E.V. D. F.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. (2009). F. and Burkes. (2005.  McKenna. J. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. 37(6)... 34(47). S. G. 45-52. P. 2007 from http://www. and Costa. and Neilly. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. I.  Mendel. Understanding Human Behavior. Rinehar and Winston. 173-181. Retrieved April 5. Gilbody. R. New York: Guilford. 23. E. 769-778.. M. Malaysia Today.  McRae. (1990). Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.  Mercer. G. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. The University of Reading. (1974). F.  McKenna. (1986). S. New York: Plenum.
D.  Michon. Safety Science. Simulator performance. In Helkama. Retrieved December 15.my/en/street_smart_statistik.E. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Finland. V. J. Retrieved May 23. P. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.  Miles. Hasselberg. 147-161. J. and Blum. Nhan. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.M. May). (1983. (2006).  Mintz. Michon. A. what should we do? In Evans. from http://www.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). H.C. (Eds. Aggressive driving. L. and Johnson. Washington DC. (154). 61(3). Accident Analysis and Prevention. L. (2003).org/pdf/agdr3study.  Mizel.A.pdf  Moller.L. G. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.L. (1989)..panducermat. K.  Mintz. 341-353.php.A.org. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 2006 from http://www. Turku. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. J. (2006). Kayumov.J. 75-85. 44(2). 2007. E. (1949). In Aggressive driving: three studies. M. Time intervals between accidents. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. 6(2).. and Laflamme. C. 401406. 38(6).  Monárrez-Espino. 335-342. 33(3). Bulmas. R. and Schwing. and Shapiro. 195-211. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1985).L. E. 266 . New York: Plenum. Statistics..  Mikkonen. 21(4). and Keskinen. (1997). (Eds. l. A. microsleep episodes.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. and Niemi. L..aaafoundation.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety.
Nandy.  Näätänen. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach.  Nandy. W. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors.. 339-343. 72. and Astur. (2003). E. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.S.  Moore. A. D.E. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (2007). Journal of Affective Disorders. Accident proneness and road accidents.  Morris. 167-202). Religioin 37.  Neuman. (1999). 137-144.  Most.B. (Eds.L. K. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. and Maniam. Visual Cognition.. P. 267 . Transcultural Psychiatry. (1976). (1956). (1987).L. 15(2). Boston: Pearson.T. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1974). R. (1994).  Niméus. Montag.  Näätänen. R. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. Petaling Jaya. H. (2007). 51-63. and Gomez. R. 243-261. L. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. S. A.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. W. T. and Summala H. MY: Sage. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 32-37. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. Fifth Edition. and Krasner. A. (Eds. A. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. 320-388). Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. 42. 164-174. 6. I. and Summala. 38(1). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). A. In O’Donoghue .L. 125-132. 8. Amsterdam: North Holland.  Novaco. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. J. and Comrey.  Mousser.
Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. (1998).38. and Lonnqvist. Zwi (1997).L (2002). P.  Olson.  Ochando. Tucson.  Noy. Aggression on roadways. Temes. 237-252. Pentilla. 654-656. p. A. and Hermida. and Olson. 253-326). p. Spanish Journal of Psychology. E. [Letter to the Editor] The Star.  Novaco. M. (1996. Garner.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. 268 . February 8). R. British Journal of Psychiatry. K.L. J. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. 171. R. December 9). Aldershot. In Baenninger. 40(10).S. (Eds. Straits Times. 43-76). B. Ergonomics. A.  O’Connell. W. 2(5). (2000). 201-215). Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Ohberg. (1997). Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering.R. R. P.W. Injury Prevention. (1997). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 1016-1024. I. Oxford UK: North Holland. In Fuller..B.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. J. and Santos.W. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. 34.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. Novaco. and Z. 468-472. (2007. (2002). 4. N51. R.  O’Neill. Driver perception-response time. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. F. 445-460. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Human factors in modern traffic systems. Driver suicides. In Dewar. (2001). [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. 92-93. and Williams..W. R. (1996).F (2001).. A. (Ed. Tropical Medicine and International Health.A. J. says operator.  Ogden. UK: Ashgate. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. 4(2). M.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. P.
 Özkan. R. T. 37(1). D.W.T. 2007 from www. and Lajunen (2005). 113-140. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 507-526. A. R.S.. Manstead... Helsinki. and Huguenin. Personality and Individual Difference. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). driving violations and accident involvement. (1988). T. N. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies.  Özkan. S. (pp. Retrieved December 20.  Parkinson. (1995). Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. 479-486. 1036-1048. (1974). (2001). O. J.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.. 125-134). (2005).. 456-461.. J. 42. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. C.  Parker. B. Ergonomics. (2008). M. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 38(5). Exploring motorcyclist injury severity in approach-turn collisions at T-junctions: focusing on the effects of the driver’s failure to yield and junction control measures.  Parker. W. Lajunen. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Accident Analysis & Prevention. Ulrich. R. Finland. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. C. 38(3).D.. J. and Synodinos. British Journal of Psychology. (1998). D. M. 40. 3-13.G. and Saleh. Accident Analysis & Prevention.  Parsons. and Grossman-Alexander. Anger on and off the road.pdf -  Pai.E. H. Reason. 533-545. Driving errors. and Summala. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. 34.ictct. 269 . T.R and Stradling. T. 18. 229-235. Traffic locus of control. 92. (2004).R. L. Journal of Environmental Psychology. Lajunen. Hebl.  Parker.S. Applied Psychology: An International Review.S. and Kaistinen. (Eds. (2002).G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Papacostas. D. and Schneider. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.M.  Parsons. Tassinary.A.
s  Pelz. and Baldwin. Hyder. A.C. and Renner. (1976). and Al Haji. (2003). 2007 from http:www. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. W. Campo Grande. A.  Pestonjee.) (2004)..  Peters.J. Taillard. Perceptual and Motor Skills.  Perry. Morristown NJ: General Learning.  Peden. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. 324. (2002). E. R. M. and Peters. (1980). A. B. G. 201-204. G..A. (1971). E.R. Quera-Salva. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. London: Taylor & Francis. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. T. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. and Hyder. Simple reaction time. S. Automotive Vehicle Safety. 147-154. Retrieved March 31. 1153. U...  Per.  Peltzer. 63. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. L. Bioulac. D. and Singh. A. D. Locus of Control in Personality. 875-878. 12(3). Sleet. K.and Schuman. M. Geneva. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.B.. 91. (2005). Switzerland: World Health Organization. (1986). Accident Analysis and Prevention. B. D. Scurfield. 8(1).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. Peden. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research..  Phares.. Jarawan.A. 68-79.ictct. Brazil. Journal of Sleep Research. 9-14 270 . March 20-22.H. Superstition. P. (1999).. British Medical Journal. (2000). and Mathers (Eds.  Philip. 619-623.M.R.A. and Åkerstedt. (2002).J. Matto Grosso do Sul. M. World report on road traffic injury prevention. J. Mohan. 3. D. 35.
-G. S.  Proctor. C. and Anderle. 32. (1993). W. (1990).  Rautela. 369-374  Renner. Human Error. Hopelessness. C.. T. Rider training. 317-333. 673-678.D. 271 . (1991). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. and Harris. Baxter. Disaster Prevention and Management. 20(4). (1989). 32(2). and Lussier.H. Chalmers.S. 299-300. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 26. E.N. New York: McGraw Hill. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. and Corlett. (1990). Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.J. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Manstead.A. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. Journal of Clinical Psychology.  Reason. 32(3). F. 16(3). S. Breen.J.  Prociuk. D.  Ranney. 334-343. P. S. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 29(1). 733-750.  Porter. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. (2005). T..I. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. S. S. K. R. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1965). J. Ergonomics. and Langley. internal-external locus of control and depression. 284-288. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. (1976).J. Cambridge University Press.  Reason. 3112). Plous.. and Campbell. Stradling. (1996). and Pant. J.S.E. 49(4). 1315-1332.. 566-573. L. R. (1994). Journal of Applied Psychology. J.. S.J. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.  Preston. (2000).  Radin Umar. (2007). A. Traffic Engineering and Control. 78-80. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 33.  Reeder.
272 .190. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. H. cities.A.efpa. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. P-A. Journal of Safety Research. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. S.  Romano. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. K. R.  Rimmö.  Robbins.S. W-R. April). (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. R. Theories of science in traffic psychology. R. Retrieved May 23. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.B. Anger. and Voas.  Romano. Ergonomics. M.pdf  Risser. (2003. 1-7..L. 37(3). 485-489. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier.P. (2000). 2007 from http://www. Stress and Health. R. R. Singapore: Elsevier. 37(1). and Huguenin. (2004). P. (Ed). and Solomon.D. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. and Downe. In Lim. 2007 from http://202. 453-460.R. (2005). Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Retting. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. and Nickel.Y.  Rice.G. A.64. Journal of Safety Research. (Eds.  Risser.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Report to the General Assembly. S. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. 34(15). (2000). Organizational Behavior. E. Weinstein.G.  Richardson. Tippetts. In Rothengatter. T. 45(8). E. (1999). S. Retrieved December 11. P.. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. and Voas. 569-582. (2007) Statistik2006.html  Robbins. Tippetts. S. (2003).
P-E. (2005). Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. and Bhopal. Boston: Kluwer. and Shahar. 80.  Rotter. M.B.  Rothengatter.B. A. Traffic safety: content over packaging. 10. Amsterdam: Elsevier. In Rothe. (1998). C.B. 273 .  Rowley. and Bhopal. 84-115.  Rothengatter.(Ed. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. T.  Rotter. (1990). 428-435  Rothe. (2002). (1975). 489-493. (2006). In Barjonet. Psychological Monographs.B. (2002). T. T. 43(1).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (Ed. (1966). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. G. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. J. 595-600). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Rosenbloom.  Rotter. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. 45. 308-331. J. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. J. 56-67. In Underwood. 5. 214-220). American Psychologist. J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.  Rothengatter.  Rothengatter. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. J. topics and methods.P. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (2005). C. 3-12). (2001) Objectives. T. whole issue.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. M. 43(3). (Ed.P.  Rowley. T. (Ed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. G. (pp. 88. 249-258. (2007). Capital & Class.
373-376. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. R. (1999).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). p. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. 37(2). 33-36. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].htm 274 .  Sadiq. 2003 from http://www. S. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. M. S. The Star. IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. Correlations between traffic. September 29).  Sabey. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. B. 29(1). IBU Pejabat Polis. (2006.  Salminen.gov. (2005. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Saad. and Santos (Eds.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). and Heiskanen. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Retrieved December 11. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. occupational.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian.  Salminen. Kuala Lumpur.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Bukit Aman. IBU Pejabat Polis. 23-42).rmp. 2007 from http://www. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). Road Safety – Back to the Future.A. In Fuller. Bukit Aman. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Bukit Aman. Kuala Lumpur. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). (1997). Retrieved May 22. IBU Pejabat Polis. J.malaysia-today. sports and home accidents. September 26). J. Bukit Aman. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. F. Amsterdam: Elsevier.A2. (2005). Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Thrills. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.my. Kuala Lumpur.
34. The research process: of big pictures. and the social psychological road in between. In Sansone. 314-318. (2008. 35. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. 6(9).A. conscientiousness. Severson. and Langley (2002). Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. J. B.L. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.T.F. November 15). (2006). Fosser. K.K. and Panter. 293302  Salih. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Bourne. K. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.  Schwebel.. Regional Development Series. Traffic Engineering + Control. (2003). Ball.I. 38. and Bourne. 29(3). 484-491.  Schneider. In Honjo.F. Applied Economics. Morf. little details. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. 801-810. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Jr. L.  Schlag.  Scuffham. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. and Schade.C.C. In Healy. Nagoya: Japan. A. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. Ericsson. 117-147). M.  Scuffham. J. A.  Sansone. L.A. and Sætermo. D. v.F. C. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1997). 41. Jr. Asian Survey. 6. A. (Ed. P. (Eds.. Personal correspondence. (1995). Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.C. M. F. and Rizzo. (1966). Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility... and sensation seeking. C.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. 179-188. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules.  Sendut. P. K. 3-16).). (1981). Morf. Accident Analysis and Prevention. V.. Healy. (2004). and Panter. 673-687.  Sambasivan. S. 275 . I. Sagberg.E. and Young. M. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. C.T... A. H.E. (2000).
T. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.L. (Ed. Journal of Consumer Research. 15(3). 1.L. suicide and unconscious motivation. 51(1).. Boston: Kluwer. (2007). 397-404. (1988).J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.. Ergonomics. Dewar. C. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. P. (2004). 46(15).E. C. Hartwick. 137-160. M. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. and Warshaw.. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). D.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.  Sheppard. New York: McGraw Hill. J. 3-7. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education..  Shinar. A.  Shapiro. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.  Shinar. Fourth Edition. M. Ketchen. (2001). L. S. (2003). Hult. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Strategic Management Journal. B. and Payne. American Journal of Psychiatry. 237-240. S. J. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. In Barjonet. 361-365.. D.  Shook. Automobile accidents. (2003).E. (1962). E. G. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.H. Journal of Counseling and Development.  Selzer.  Siegel. (2000).P. (1988). and Roskova. and Zakowska.M and Kacmar.  Sharkin. P-E.M. 276 . (1998). D.R. K. U. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. 66.  Sharma. 180-205). (1956). B. 1549-1565.S. Sekaran. 325-343. H. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. 25. R. Summala. 119(3). and Kanekar. New York: John Wiley & Sons.  Siegriest.
Retrieved December 1. (2007).C.. M. B. Stress. N.  Stanton. International Journal of Stress Management.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder.org/publik/driving.. Retrieved December 25. and Watson.. Sinha. H. American Psychologist.  Spielberger. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Fishchoff. Reheiser. M.J. D. (1998). Journal of Risk and Insurance. J. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. 49-68).) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. 14(4). 477-492.pdf  Spielberger.). In Kassinove.A. B.J.R. Houston. In Stanton.. 277 . Corrigan. S. expression and control of anger. Matthews.. Winter). R. 237-258. and Sydeman. 21(4). 1-18). Oxford UK. 2007 from http://findarticles. P. Ergonomics. and Poirier.G.. (1992).K. Editorial. Product design with people in mind. Auto safety and human adaptation. P. London: Arnold. Cognitive Therapy and Research. (2001. (2004).D. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. FL: Taylor & Francis. 47(8). A.  Slinn. and Guest. 1151-1158.C. Jr. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. 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. B. B. E. 44. Issues in Science and Technology. August).K.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. (1977).  Slovic. N. Kurylo.A. and Coombs.  Stanton. C. B..  Smiley. Lichtenstein.sirc. Crowson.D. C. 50(8). (Ed.A. 2007 from http://www. S. (2007). Measuring the experience. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.. C. 386-397. J. (1997). Boca Raton. 1029-1030. (1995). P. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. and Frank. N. (Ed.
Novaco. M.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. (1996). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. A. (2003). 949-964. M. N. R. Stanton. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Bilgic.C. 35. 279-300). 43(9).  Stevenson.. (Ed.E. (1978).. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. M. and Havland. Ergonomics. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. (Eds. J. and Pinto.  Sümer. In Lewis. Journal of Psychology. The Methodology of Theory Building. T. 2(4). Traffic Injury Prevention.. J. Traffic congestion.E.. R. R.. R. Morrison. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Stokols. 1359-1370. (1993). H. J. Trabasso. 139(6).R. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.  Stough. and stress.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. E. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.  Stokols. Maggio. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Journal of Applied Psychology. 467-480. N..R. G.A. R. 278 . Type A Behavior. N. (2001). Cheltenham..W. (2001). N. 529-544. and Erol. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.  Steiner.  Stein. 63.L. and Campbell.A. D. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. 37(4). M.M.  Sümer. In Stough.  Subramaniam. M. 44(3). P. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. and Jin. 681-688. New York: Guilford. (2005). N.  Storey. D. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 178-182. 247-254. T. (2000). and Liwag. Sümer. (2005). N..  Stewart. UK: Edward Elgar. (1988). Palamara. and Ryan.
(Eds. (2006). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. 82-92). (1988). 38. H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. N. H. Koonchote. Mahasakpan. S. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. 18(4). W. Karanci. Sümer. Nguntra. (Report 11)... A. (1980).) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. and Gunes. H.. 41-52). In In Rothengatter. G. and Punto. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. H. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Personal resources. N. R.  Summala. 103-117. T.. 442-451.  Summala. Özkan. Human Factors.  Summala.K.. Nieminen. H. M. and Merisalo. P. and Tantriratna. 193-199. (1986).  Sümer. (2005). S. 383-394). 22(1-3).N. Journal of Traumatic Stress. T. (1994).. H. In Underwood. T. G. T. Helsinki.  Summala. and Carbonell Vaya E. (Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. (1988). (1996).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. In Rothengatter. 31. Berument. R. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. and Lajunen. Ergonomics. T. (2005). H. Safety Science. P. A. (1996). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications.  Swaddiwudhipong.  Summala. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. 331-342. (Ed. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Summala. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. vehicles.  Summala. 38(3). and de Bruin. H. (1997). 21.. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . 703-711. H. and Näätänen. Accident risk and driver behaviour. 491-506. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.
(1998). P-E.S.  Synodinos. L. B. S. 25(1). New York: Thomas & Cromwell. (2001). E. 241-263). Boston: Kluwer. S.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. and Kitamura. J. 581-590. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.R. (eds. 33(2). G. (1985). and Theodorson. Ono.  Thompson. (1989).  Taylor. 167-172.. Y. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. In Barjonet. 18(4). Sakamoto. and Kitamura. and Layde. and Huba.. 37-44. Y. T. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.A. 138(5). 34. E.233-239. S. (2001).M. (Ed. Journal of Social Psychology. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 609-615..  Tanaka.M.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 52(6). The interaction of attention and emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster. 241-257. T. P. Sakamoto.. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.  Tavris. and Fragopanagos (2005). and Yarnold.  Tanaka.  Tanaka. E. J.J. 42.  Theeuwes. A. and Papacostas. C.S.G. (2000). The effects of road design on driving. Fujihara.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Kuhn. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. S. D. (1996). Fujihara. G. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.E. 280 .. Ono. Neural Networks. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. C. International Review of Applied Psychology. 353-369.. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.  Tavris. (1969).R.C.  Theodorson. G. P. (1985). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Journal of Clinical Psychology.. In Grimm. N. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.
G. B. and Everatt.  Turner. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. J. 321-333.. (2004).  Underwood. P. 55-68. Applied Cognitive Psychology.. and McClure.A and Hobbs. 5(5). (1996). Relationship to risk-taking preferences.  Tversky. 10(3). A. 5.. (1993). R. (1985).E. Personality subtypes of young drivers. 7. 106(5). Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. H. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. 23(1). L. (2001). G. G.  Tversky. Personality and Individual Differences. 281 . The accident prone automobile driver. 279-297. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. accident involvement. A. Enns. Wright and Crundall. Judgment under uncertainty. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. D. (1997). 147-152. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. A.T.W. and Milton.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Thurman. 11-22. and Kahneman. P.  Trick. and response to a traffic safety campaign. (Eds. (1974). (2003). (1999). 4(4). R.  Underwood. 1124-1130. C. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.M. Anger while driving. J. and Kahneman.  Trimpop. 445-448. D. American Journal of Psychiatry. Volume 3: Attention. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Cognitive Psychology. Mills. Science. 123-130. London: Academic. and Vavrik. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. G. 2. In Neumann. (1949). J. D.  Ulleberg. and Kirkcaldy. W. 385-424. O. 207-332. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Chapman. 32(3). 185. (1973).  Tiliman.  Underwood. J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Personality predictors of driving accidents. C. and Sanders.F.
Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). On-line driver workload estimation. Matto Grosso do Sul. E. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. (2001).. A. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. (2000). Bergerson. Personality and Individual Differences.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. In Underwood. Utzelmann. 210-222. 26. March 20-22. T. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. and McIntyre. (1998). (1999). In Rothengatter. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. W. S. Caserta. H. Retrieved December 5.F. 336-345. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Campo Grande.ictct. G. Italy.pdf  Vallières. D. J.M. D.. Harris. and Vallerand..” Recovery. 282 . W. Retrieved September 1. 913-921.  Vaa.A.. 2007 from www. Brazil. 9(2). J. Cockfield. 42. (Eds. 181-190). Driver selection and improvement in Germany. A. T..B.D.  Vavrik. and Huguenin. S. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Smart. Ergonomics. (2004). and Rothengatter. Ergonomics.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa.F.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo.J. 444-458. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J.  Vasconcellos.  Verwey.. Harrison. (2007).ictct. M. 39. 24-29. R. Meijman. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. (Ed. T. (2005).. “Accident prone.A. (2005).  Velting. 2007 from http:www. (1999). A. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. É.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.D. 43(2). Sanson.
Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. P.B. (2006). The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.F. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.  Watson. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. 438-447. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. (2000). (2001). and Åberg. Personality and Individual Differences.F. Verwey. 33. D. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. 421-444. 283 .pdf  Wei. (2009. L.  Waylen. B. (1997). and Zaidel. January 21). T. Wellington. 1-8).H. Shope. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. and Little.T. (2002). 117128. M. 2007 from http://www. Transportation and society. (1998).com/articles/waterman37. Stanton.. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. and Carbonell Vaya E. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.  Wállen Warner. Journal of Counseling Psychology. G.E. A. M.M. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.A. 9. Retrieved December 15..P. M. Backwoods Home Magazine.P. Retrieved November 2.J. F.  Waterman. Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. Raghunathan.S.  Waller. 2008 from http://www. Heppner. H. New Zealand. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. N. (2001). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 50(4). Elliot.backwoodshome. 427-433.html.  Walker. W. T.. P.theaa. J. and Young. In Rothengatter.. A.. P. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety.A. 28. 123-142. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.  Waller. and Mallinckrodt (2003). and McKenna.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 5(4). (Eds.
Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . American Journal of Psychiatry... Ceminsky.S. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 34.. G. D. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. (ed. 15(11/12). Risk Analysis. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. Fox.M.  Wells.S. S. Childhood accidents. (2007). (1961). (pp. (2005).. Target Risk. 130(4). 1116-1121.J. 135-154).  Wilde. J. (Ed. 324. J.J. Guiling. E. R. B. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. 450-455. Weissman.).  Wilde.M (1956). S. Snow. 441-468. 1149-1152. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. 8.J. G.  Wheatley.  Wilde. M. and Anderson.S. (2002). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. (2002). and Klerman. Accident Prevention. 207-219. Ergonomics. Preventions of accidents in childhood. Elander. G. Mild social deviance. K.J. 195. Dunaway. In Yager. Toronto: PDE Publications. and French. G.N. (1984). Advances in Paediatrics. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Wheatley. (1988). 2. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates.S. G. P.S. (1994).W. (1973). (1993).  West. Hallberg. M.J.  Wilde.  Wilde. G. (1982). 84. R. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. G. G.L.S. 209-225. Wiliams.. M. 271278.. G..J. British Journal of Psychology.  Wells-Parker. 31.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp.  Wilde. University of Waterloo Press. In Halsey. G.
A.. Space and Culture. S. T.ictct.. T. L. (2001). by age and gender. Boyd. March 20-22. N. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice..C. 398-403. M. J. M. and Hartman.Y. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.R. 34(5).I. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 110-131. Welsh.. V.. Lenard. and Boyd. In Hanson. Countries and Their Cultures. International Social Science Journal. Brazil. 55(175). New York: Taylor & Francis.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. Boston: Pearson. 1.F.. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.  Williamson.K.  Williams. E. 26(6). The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. A.  Williams. (Ed. (2003). N. Cascardi. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.  Wood. A. 31. Journal of Safety Research.Workshop. (2003). S. 527-531. (1999). Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.J.G. (2008). A. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. (2004). T.  Wilson.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Matto Grosso do Sul. Flyte and Garner.  Williams.  Woodcock. J. A. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Applied Ergonomics. Retrieved March 31. (2003). 6(2).  Williams.S.G. 303346. 8. J.B. and Poythress. (2000). D. and Well. 2007 from http:www. Psychological Assessment.E. 99-109. 807-811. Campo Grande. (1994). J. Gavin. 285 . Wood.  Williamson. Mastering the World of Psychology. M. Responsibility of drivers. (1996). 557-567.F. and Shabanova.
Technical Report Series No.  Yergil. D.R. 33(3).  Zhang. S. 42(5). In Underwood. (2005). X.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.C. (2007). Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 286 . 43(9). 50(1). and Stanton. Ergonomics. 46-58. G.S. Head tilt during driving. Report of an Advisory Group. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. D.  Zikovitz. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. (2005). D. (1999). and Chaffin. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research.  Yaapar. 118. M. and Harris. 740-746.A. Geneva. N. . Ergonomics. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. 473-485. (Ed. (2000). World Health Organization [WHO] (1957).  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Asian Journal of Social Science. Ergonomics. Islam. L. theatre and tourism. Country reports. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. 1314-1330. 487-503).
traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. the brake line pressure is relates. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again.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. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. Immediately after releasing the pressure. As a result. (see also. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . presumably because of personality factors. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. on most surface types. 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. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. allowing the wheel to turn. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. differential accident involvement). ABS ensures that. or benefits.
as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. characteristics of road users. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. (see also. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. 25). 288 . Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. road and traffic conditions. where possible. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. The central idea is that. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. Also referred to as risk compensation. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. distal variable. risk homeostasis theory. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. task capability theory) . drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. 2004. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. (see also.Noy. including driver behaviour. it refers to a combination of circumstances. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. proximal variable. time of week and. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. 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. (see also. (see also. In the present research. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. rather than a theory. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. McKenna of the University of Reading. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. p.
Rotter of the University of Connecticut. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. in-crash. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. intelligence. (see also. interests. aptitudes. In traffic psychology. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. Department of Transportation. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. 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. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. motivation. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. William Haddon Jr. 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).. not as a unidimensional. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. selfefficacy and self-esteem. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). values. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 289 . who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U.S. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. self-concept. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. ability. (see also.
if perceived risk falls below the target risk. motorcycles. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . as expressed by Raymond Cattell. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land.S. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. For the purposes of the present research. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Different schools of psychology vary in their conceptualisation of personality: the individual psychology of Gordon Allport views personality as “the dynamic integration within individuals that determine their characteristic behaviour and thought”. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. mobile construction equipment or platforms. conversely. 1985. Included in this term are walking. including life goals” (Chaplin. 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. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. 333-334). Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. bicycling. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Wilde. and buses. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. the individual differences approach. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. trucks (lorries). motor vehicles included automobiles. p. most usually on roads. Private speech: see self-talk. That is. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. motorised bicycles. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. For the purposes of the present research. the ego and the superego. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University.
target risk. parking spaces. bridges. but only 291 .” (Ogden. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Road safety engineering: “a process. Within the context of this research. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. 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. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. 1996. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. behavioural adaptation. draining system. p. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. at both conscious and unconscious levels. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. stopping places. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. tunnels. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. signage. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. 35). these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. overpasses. (see also. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. archways and footpaths. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. including the network.
According to RHT proponents. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (see also. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. which are the best predictors of behaviour. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). (see also.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. 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. 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. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. According to Wilde (1994). which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. On dry roads. remains constant at the target level. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. theory of reasoned action. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. behaviour control) (see also. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. (see also. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. perceived Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): was proposed by Martin Fishbein at the time with the University of Illinois at Urbana and presently of the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania.
Traffic management: planning. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. community planning. In the present research. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . ergonomics. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. from its outset. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. management science and economics. road engineering. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. that share the same road infrastructure. coordinating. behavioural adaptation. convenience and economy. 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. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. comfort. time. (see also. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. motorised and non-motorised. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
wpspublish.S. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 2000).html 295 . Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Brace & Company). Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. San Antonio.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.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.eng.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. 19500 Bulverde Road. Buss & Warren.edu/~csp/csp. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. Beck & Steer.hawaii. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. C.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Papacostas & Synodinos. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. 1993).
Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. C. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Snyder.edu/hope. 296 . Kansas 66045 USA www.ukans. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.R.psych. Crowson. Snyder. Houston.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
_________. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 . In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________...what manufacturer & model (e. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.g. We are not asking for your name. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. please answer the following questions: 2. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 1.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.g. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. Most of the time when you travel. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. _________. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.
all the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. some of the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. When you want to use a motorcycle. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.8. When you want to use a car. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11.
have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. Within the last twelve months. 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. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.12. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.