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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
However. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). externally-focused frustration. where. 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). some personality constructs. and destination-activity orientation. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. personality traits. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. vii .ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. respectively). 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. 302 and 252. hopelessness. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. and that driver behaviours. seven fatalities are recorded each day. demographic (age. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. on average. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. freeway urgency. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way.
The role of the proximal variable. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. As hypothesised. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Among distal variables. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. Results indicated that. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. viii . Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. as well. 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. BIT. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. 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. As reported in previous studies. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes.
1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.4 Risk Theories 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 22.214.171.124.2 Differential Accident Involvement 126.96.36.199 1.1 Concepts.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.1 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.6 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 2.5 188.8.131.52 ix .2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Theories and Models 2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 184.108.40.206.3.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2.2 220.127.116.11 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3 1.
18.104.22.168 Psychological Variables 2.2.4 22.214.171.124 Age 2.1.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.4.1 Demographic Variables 2.1 Statistical Models 184.108.40.206.3 Locus of Control 3.5 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 Hopelessness 2.5.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.3.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 220.127.116.11.6.3 Ethnicity 2.4.2 Gender 18.104.22.168.2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.4.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 Experience 2.6. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.6 2.5.2 Process Models 22.214.171.124.2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 126.96.36.199.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 188.8.131.52 Zero Risk Theory 2.4 Hopelessness 3.4.1 The Haddon Matrix 184.108.40.206.1 Locus of Control 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2.1 220.127.116.11.5.3.
7.8 Crash Occurrence 18.104.22.168. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.2.1 The Sample 3.1 Study 1A 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.2.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 188.8.131.52.5.6.4 Study 2 3.5.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 184.108.40.206.3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.5.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.2 Research Instruments 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.2.6 3.2 Study 1B 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.3 Study 1C 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.6.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 220.127.116.11.3.5 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 18.104.22.168 3.5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.3.3 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7 22.214.171.124.5.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 126.96.36.199.5.5.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.
3.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6 xii .188.8.131.52.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 184.108.40.206 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 220.127.116.11.6.6.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.1.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.6.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.2.2 Results of Study 2 4.12.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168 Parallel-Form Reliability 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.12.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124 Age.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.5 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6.4 4.1.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.5.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 126.96.36.199 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.3.6.6.
6 xiii .5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.2 5.1 Study 1C 4.6.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.5 5.6.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.7 188.8.131.52 Study 2 4.8.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.6.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 184.108.40.206.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.9.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 220.127.116.11.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.1 5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.5.4 18.104.22.168.4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 22.214.171.124.9.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 126.96.36.199 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.8 4.
2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.3 Education 188.8.131.52.7.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.3 Driver Selection.184.108.40.206.2 Engineering Interventions 5.5.1 Theory vs.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 220.127.116.11 5.7.
10 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 4.7 4.9 4.4 3.5 4.3 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.5 4.LIST OF TABLES No.1 3.11 xv .3 3.3 114 4. Table Page 2. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.6 4.2 3.4 115 117 118 119 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. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.8 111 121 121 122 4.1 4.1 2.
18 131 4.20 134 4.28 4.13 4.19 133 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.17 129 4.27 4.23 136 4.24 137 4.25 138 4.21 135 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.22 136 4.16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.14 4.29 xvi .12 4.
36 4.41 175 5.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.6 xvii .39 4.35 4.2 5.1 199 206 207 5.4 208 5.3 5.33 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.4.37 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.5 209 225 5.34 4.
10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. Hatakka.LIST OF FIGURES No.9 59 2.6 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.3 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. 1996. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.3 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 2.2 3.2 2.3 4.2 147 148 4. 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 2.4 4.1 3.4 148 xviii . 2.1 2.7 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.1 4.
4.12 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.10 4.13 xix .
He didn’t want to go. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. And they crashed. I’m a fairly big guy. He was driving. finally. He was very popular with other students. they were focused on the errand. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. at least not with real tears. . Her hands and voice quivered. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. I hope it makes a contribution. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. things were not going well. She started crying and couldn’t stop. lane deviation and all the rest. I wanted to throw in the towel. and this thesis is the result. they cut across a lane too quickly. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. I don’t cry much any more. She had needed to go on an errand. I’m pretty happy with it. I feel like it a bit right now. She had been badly injured. they were frustrated and angry with each other. I was confused by the results I was getting. I like to watch boxing. he’d taken the same course as she. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I got back to work on them. They were hurrying. I told her not to worry. But sometimes. or wouldn’t. But. externally-focused frustration. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. she was riding pillion. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. The behaviour of the traveller.PREFACE Accidents occur. programme. and his mental state. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph.D. to the weary traveler. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. How important these factors are. only a trimester or two earlier. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. My research design needed a serious re-working. I didn’t recognise her at first. but she’d nagged him. I knew the fellow. is a matter of debate … Obviously. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. just every so often. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. LISREL couldn’t. xx .Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. they are prone to other types of error as well.
the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Sabey (1999). 2004) have been studied extensively. perceptual (Hong. Ogden. such as Malaysia. Trick. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 1999). policy-makers.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. 2004). Verwey. including the 1 . 2000.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. 2007. Graham. 2000). road.. 2001. 2002).1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2004). Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. state of mind and physical well-being. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Even after decades of study. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Green. Olson. Mohan & Hyder. Consistently over the years. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Iwasaki. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. cognitive (Vaa. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Enns. 1996. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. judgement. Stanton & Pinto. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. 2007. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton.g. 2006. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. anticipation. Scurfield. Theeuwes. This is particularly salient in developing countries. commented that. Peters & Peters. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Sleet. for instance.g. Mills & Vavrik. 11). the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2000). Furuichi & Kadoma.. 2001). 2002.
hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. According to Dewar (2002b). However. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.112). 1983). 2 . describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2004. 2002. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 21). p. 2003). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. McKenna. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. The chapter 1. There was a total of 341. locus of control. including the study of a large number of variables. 2007). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. “the literature on personality has a long history. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2005).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional.roadway. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. A total of 10. 1989). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.790.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents.351.332 drivers and 15.
Renner & Anderle. 2001. Severson. Gal & Syna Desevilya. 2005). locus of control (Arthur. Rimmö. 1997. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. aggression (Parkinson. Gonzalez. Blasco. 2000. 2005. 2001. Parada & Cortes. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Barrett & Alexander. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Shinar. Ulleberg. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 1993. 3 . Gidron. 2004. 2000). easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 1979. Huang. Wells-Parker et al. 3). Vasconcellos. Wells. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Dewar. Schwebel. 2002) and many others. 2002. Lajunen & Kaistinen. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2003. 2002b. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 2006. 1999. 2001). and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Hence. Elander. 2002. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Draskóczy. Ball & Rizzon. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Lin. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Özkan. 2005. Lajunen & Summala. 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. Stewart. Barjonet & Tortosa. West & French. Cohn. 1991. 1997). 2002. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. 2004). Verwey. Historically. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 1997). Sumala & Zakowska. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Loo. 1997). integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2006. 2004. 2007). 2003). 1997). Hwang. Wu & Yen. 1994.
leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.e. Noy (1997). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. for instance. 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.e. 2004). road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. in turn. Sümer (2003). 2005). A frequent criticism. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. in particular. 1996. vehicle. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. externally-focused frustration. however.. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.Increasingly. 1. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. 1997). with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. Parker.. Speeding. 1997. Hampson & Morris.
While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. By focusing on not only demographic.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. (e) driver aggression.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 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. but also on their interactions. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. (d) driver hopelessness. (c) driver locus of control. p. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 1. 2005. (b) driving experience. injuries and deaths. situated as proximal variables. 5 . the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. “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. gender and ethnicity. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. 9).
2000). they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. road safety measures and public policy. 2001. Hatakka. 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. “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. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 2004. Utzelmann. in the applied sciences. Rothengatter. the plethora of theories available. 2005. There is a growing sentiment that. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2004. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Some authors have suggested that. 2004). p. Laapotti. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 1997). Näätänen & Summala. Katila & Peräaho.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 6 . Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. 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. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. Moreover. 1993). It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 1974). 1997. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 94).
5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. human motivation. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. It is useful. In doing so. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. 2001). with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. 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. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. Che Ali. To the author’s knowledge.. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. This broader perspective.g. 2001).Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. 7 . incorporating cognitive ergonomics. Radin Umar.g. attitude theory. 1. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures.. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. in turn. which deals with methodology. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.
Babin. 2006. driving experience. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. cultural background). to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. 2003). These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. Anderson & Tatham. Study 2 and Study 3. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. 711). at the conclusion of Study 1C. p. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. In each successive study. second. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. first. Black. the effects of selected demographic (age. In Study 1. or outcome. variables (Sekaran. 1B and 1C). The final result.however. gender. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. each entailing data collection from a different sample. In this case. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. driving (experience. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. aggression. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. hopelessness. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined.
1. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. a third model was constructed. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. Again. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities.are most important in predicting. In Study 3. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. in fact. verbally administered psychometric instruments. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.to 45-minute trips. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. After the initial model-building had been completed. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. over the course of 30. 9 . These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. In Study 2.
(b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. However. Stradling. while recognising the distinction. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. 1997). at least to a certain extent. Baxter & Campbell. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Manstead. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. 1990). is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Are the attitudes. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The present research.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Boyce & Geller. Finally. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. 2002. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. Katila & Laapotti. Keskinen. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. as well. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. The relationship between the manner 10 . 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. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2003). Over 6. 2007). in order of frequency. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. inconsiderate and aggressive. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. in aggregate. to a rapid increase 12 . “patient”. The public image of driving in Malaysia – and the generally negative reputation of the driving community – suggests that roadway safety has emerged as a significant national problem. “laid-back” and “considerate”. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. 2007). there were 341. 2007). 2007). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. 2005). 2005). “impatient”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “bullies” and “selfish”. Recently. 2006). 2005). Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. “reckless”. “peaceful”. they indicated “angry”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. These are thought to have contributed. “friendly”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. industrialisation and motorisation.1. economic expansion.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 1989). In newspaper reports. A developing country in Southeast Asia.1 2.
Table 2.885 35. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. 2005).218 2005 6.815 2005 328.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. & Wong. Radin Umar.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.287 in 2006.415 52.287 9. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.304 in 1994 to 6. In Malaysia.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. in Malaysia.552 37. Subramaniam & Law. 2005).425 2003 6.286 9.645 54. from 189. 2007).253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.741 38. Mohd Zulkiflee. Abdul Rahman. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. Table 2.425 5.395 2006 6.417 47. 2005).7111 2003 298. 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.236 49.891 8. 2003.000 vehicles (Law. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.200 9.012 19.264 2006 341.20 deaths per 10.653 2004 326. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.040 2004 6. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Studies 13 .000 vehicles in 2006.228 9. This suggests that studies.2).98 deaths per 10. Generally.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.091 37. 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.
97 1. 2001. Morrison & Ryan.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.947 10.05 2.49 450 2.31 3.15 43 0.82 1. 2002.47 280 1.620 7.81 2.85 2.99 164 0.315 17. Palamara.92 2.68 3. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.178 15.76 22.205 11. 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.593 11.54 708 3.67 206 0.038 13.15 3.45 30 0.94 625 3.23 2.72 554 2. or an average of RM4. in 1999 alone.48 323 1.81 1.15 572 2.10 3.80 203 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.086 9.37 337 1.05 2.11 2.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.034 4.049 15.4 billion to RM5. or about 2.08 1.803 9.997 14.77 3.953 17.56 3.22 150 0. 2005).469 15.63 160 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. 2001).29 2.71 543 2.64 135 0. 14 .27 458 2.05 1.21 3.180 10.94 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. general insurers paid RM1.92 1.29 708 3.50 979 4.65 121 0. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.85 147 0.378 11.023 5.967 100 19.81 3.68 128 0.84 1.61 99 0.431 7.389 6.416 6.16 90 0.07 2. 2003).07 2.110 10.08 585 2.41 302 1.418 100 19.65 2.94 2.448 17.40 1.26 463 2.48 105 0.08 2.551 12.90 159 0.921 100 20.709 8.341 12.7 billion.67 billion. It has been reported that.06 608 3. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. Table 2.005 15.025 9.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.820 13. and particularly among younger drivers.08 541 2.91 984 4.216 10. 2006).309 10.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. Criticisms of road configuration. (Bernama. which is actually a nightmare. The economic consequences can be estimated. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 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. lane definition. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . or the pain of the maimed. What else can we do.Yet. 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. 2006). physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. Some seven years later. if people want to die? (Lim. 2005). In 1999. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. 1999). There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. 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. traffic congestion. 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.
Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. In 2006. 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. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature. A leading university professor and Director-General of Malaysia’s Institute for Road Safety Research similarly noted that: Malaysian drivers are not good in safety routines. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 2005). Krishnan & Radin Umar. 1997). unlike in other countries. though. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2001. 2007). The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. given greater risks of accident. how they think. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. Who they are. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 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 . Researchers. 2007). newspaper columnists. 2006).215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. In a recent newspaper interview.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2005). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. is often mentioned as a factor. Generally. as compared with 1. for instance.
Musa. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. however. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Bartle & Truman. (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. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. injuries and fatalities. rather than personality factors. In the same study. This is. Law et al. Radin Umar. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. perhaps. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. respectively. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. conspicuity and excessive speeding. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. 17 . 1996). 2007). Chalmers & Langley. Law. In a separate study.1. 2. For instance. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Ward.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Ahmad Hariza. In none of the studies of the MSP. Mohd Nasir.
generalising to all driving environments and situations. He argued that. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 121-122). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.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. resulted in a myriad of problems. 18 . 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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. has linked peninsular communities. 1996). 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.122). however. This. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 110). 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. 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. since 1994. the factor that made the high speeds possible. According to Williamson. The very monotony of the road surface. they are accident prone. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly.
Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. levels of driving experience and. Among engineering factors. etc.2 2. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. personality characteristics (Elander.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. particularly. Christ. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. bad road conditions. by far. 1993). but rather 19 . 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. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. West and French. Among human factors. experiential. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). 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. 1991). This has included the examination of age and gender. 1993. 784). 62). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle.2. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. Åberg.2.
1997. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 1994). to a large degree. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. unclear. 2005). 377). 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. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 2004). 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. 2004) and other contextual variables. Haddon (1963). He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 641). 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. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. prior accident experience (Lin et al. Further. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field.by the behaviour of drivers. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 2002. Ranney. or at least predict. weak. However. Lajunen & Summala. There are two principle approaches in order to influence the driver: adjusting the traffic system to the driver or adjusting the driver to the traffic system. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics.
the use of inconsistent crash definitions. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. Preston & Harris. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables.2.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.2. information processing. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 2003). driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 1993). 21 . the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 2. 1996. 2003). Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 321). 2002. 1997a). The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.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. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. there has been an interest in driver personality.2. the lack of replication of many studies. 2005). accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Nevertheless. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. Underwood & Milton. 1961. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 482).
predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. Indeed. psychology.2. Ochando. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. traffic and transportation. in the field of traffic. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. in a Spanish survey. or the psychological support for intervention. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.2.” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. To wit.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. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. transportation planning. but that complex traffic 22 . attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules.654-655.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. or peculiar to. ergonomics. 246).) 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). 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. 2. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. According to Rothengatter (2001). 3). 2002). medicine. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. eoncompassing engineering. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. anthropology and sociology.
Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. Johnston. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 2002). Odero. 1997. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 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. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Wilson. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. In the broadest sense. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. Hyder & Peden. the road infrastructure and other road users. Stanton (2007) noted that. Peden & Hyder. 1995. 2000). in particular. 24). commented that: From the perspective of the driver. over the past ten years.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 1158). In a recent special edition. Garner and Zwi. as well. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. 2003. surrounding environments and 23 . the study of cognitive processes. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 2004. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Ergonomics has made a contribution. the road environment comprises the vehicle. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 2007. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger.
Walker. predict and modify road user behaviour. and “Generation Three” ergonomics.3 2. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2004). Increasingly. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. error and cognitive modelling. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 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. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. 2. though. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. Noy. 2001). According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). particularly the notions of mental load.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. Neerincx & Schriebers. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. 26). These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 2006. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. “This school of though. Jannssen. 1997. 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. 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.3. Stanton & Young.tasks to human capabilities and limitations.
often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. 1969). 2. or accident-causing behaviours. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. often in mathematical form. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. or both. this may be due to 25 . but for the purposes of this thesis. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Reasons for this are likely several. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. p. 2000. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. p. On the other hand.3. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. many models have been proposed. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. 1995). A-18) Often. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.. whether theories should explain everyday driving. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 2005).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. 2005. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 1985). In traffic psychology. Healy. To a degree. in traffic psychology.
but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. 2004.3.the imprecise definition of concepts. 26 . Rothengatter. 2002). five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 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. Notwithstanding these difficulties. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. perceptions.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. 189). These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. 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. 2005). cognitive. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. avoid obstacles. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. risk adaptation theories. For over ninety years.. etc. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. 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. Instead. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. attitudes. given the complexity of human behaviour. motives and personalities (Robbins. and emotional determinants. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. social. enjoy driving. and most of the time is not especially influential. 2. feel in control. minimise delay and driving time.
without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. aged 16 to 29 years. 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. However. conscientiousness. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. 1990). or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. McRae &Costa. irresponsibility and driving related aggression.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. neuroticism. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. but not occupational accidents. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. aggression. 1980) and other safety outcomes. According to Rothengatter (2002). 1979). 1995. for instance. 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). There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. 2000). the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature.
Research by board statisticians. 1962.finding. personality. λ.3. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. weight and perhaps even intelligence.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1984). but persists today. If each individual has a unique λ-value. p. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. occupational and otherwise.152). but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. just as one can meaure height. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. 1920). that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. 1993. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. his or her accident proneness. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. during and following the war years. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. the average number of accidents. in certain cases. 2. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. West & French. In 1917. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. “irrespective of environment. According to Haight (2004). found first that the frequency of accidents. 290).3. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. sensori-motor skill. p.
1929. more probably psychological (p. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. produced a positive. in successive years. by devising clever tests. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. subjects reported significant. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. inappropriate. in traffic or when playing 29 . inadequate or irrelevant.out what that value is. “Because crashes are so infrequent. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). noting that. 2004). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 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. as well. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. but did not take into consideration whether. 1939) and many others. The accident-prone concept. in a Finnish telephone survey. p. made an assumption that. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. 1956). 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. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. 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. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. 2004). None of the experiments. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. at home. Johnson (1946). 195). Scores on the λ dimension. 1997). 1991. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Farmer and Chambers (1926. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. in any sample. perhaps physiological. however. 294). 422).
roadway. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.3. 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. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. 8-9). moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. The concept itself is ill-defined. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. therefore. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Ultimately. Visser.3. 1980. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies.. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 2. sports and family settings. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. Stolk. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. So. 1993).05. 562).2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. pp. 1998).sports. Pijl.
but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations.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. 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. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. following their review of the literature. substantially. large earth-moving 31 .3. That is. 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. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. A driver who enters a construction zone. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. 2.4. The introduction of divided highways. experience more accidents than others. Elander et al.accident proneness (Chmiel.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. albeit not crash occurrence.. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. crash barriers. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and.3. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. in a study of driving on icy roads. in fact. 2000). Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. For example. 2. However. Wilde (1982.
flat. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. Initially. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. 2002). Conversely. Michon. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . 2005). according to the theory. Collectively. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. at least until the target risk level was reached. 1989. 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. for example. according to the theory. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. Sagberg. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 2008. 1986. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. That is. Fosser & Sætermo. When others (Haight.” (Fuller. 1994. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. McHugh & Pender. Ranney.vehicles and warning flags. Wilde. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 1988. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 14). is if the level of target risk is reduced. 1997). 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. in turn. p. 2001. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. a driver motoring along a wide. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. In two separate studies.
but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. 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. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT.. Slovic. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 2008. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. 223). 2001. 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. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 1994. Fischoff. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. the community.. 2004). Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. Lichtenstein. p. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Also. 1989. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 1151). More than any other driving theory.” (Vaa. however. 2002). or the nation” (Brown & Noy. but they are not defined in psychological terms. Evans 33 . Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. 2002). Rothengatter. p. Corrigan & Coombs. 2004). pay sufficient attention to risk. (p. 53). and not on the available technology” (Wilde. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. 1977). To the contrary.
experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. p. 1987. 81). zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 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. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 26). Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. In addition. O’Neill and Williams (1998). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. after a similar review.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 2. At this point. 92). or expecting. Summala. some degree of risk during the performance of this task.3. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 2004. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.4. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. for example.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 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. Rather. and 34 . a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. In other words. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded.
for instance. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. Glad & Hernetkoskis.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. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. 2002. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. 1998. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. A large number of studies show that external motives. Meijman & Roghengatter. Gregersen. Hataaka. and specific driver actions. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. much of which arises from personality. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. Van der Hulst. Summala (1996. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. On the other hand. 1999). in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. such as time pressure. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious.3. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.1). 35 . pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Reeder et al. as a result. 2. age and social variables.learn how to respond safety to. Keskinen. 1996. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions.
(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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. for example. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. seemingly concurrently.1: Task Cube (from Summala. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. at the same time. 1996) Keskinen et al. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 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.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 . 15). a property absent within the task cube concept. 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.
However. 2000) 37 .g. Fuller (2000.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 1982. Most of the time. high speeds.1). this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. affective states). 2.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.3. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. 252). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.
(2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date.3. 40).Fuller’s theory has. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 2. p. for the most part. Two limitations have been noted. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 126).7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. time pressure). institutions or issues (Chaplin. Generally.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. objects.6. 1991). Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward 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. p. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. however. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. Since 1985. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . emotional state.3. 2004. 1985. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Fishbein & Ajzen. According to the TRA. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. 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. and Keskinen et al. 1985. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen.
2007). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. however (Sharma & Kanekar. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).3. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.” (Azjen.2). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 39 . see Figure 2. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. To deal with this uncertainty.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 24). 1985. then. “Even very mundane activities. 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”). p. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). According to the TPB.7. 2.
Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. p. when intention is held constant. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). 2002. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 40 .e. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. In one study. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 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. 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. 1989) Within the theory. or sense of self-efficacy. greater perceived control (i. 253). on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 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. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. Further. 2003). it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian.
for instance. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. vehicles. based on data extracted from police record forms. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. but after controlling for distance travelled.2.4 2. 2002). This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.In another study. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics.4. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. Austin and Carson (2002). Similar to later findings by Law et al.1.2). roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. 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. Attitude toward speeding. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 2.
4. Seow & Lim. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. however. Mahasakpan. 1999). Nguntra. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 2. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Swaddiwudhipong. 1998. 1994). within specific situational contexts.4.2 Process Models 2. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. Law. More recently. the road (R) and the environment (E).. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. 1997.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Koonchote & Tantiratna. E and especially H factors.locations and settings (e. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.2. the vehicle (V). R. 1997) 42 .g. 2000). Richardson & Downe.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).
more proximal variable.2. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.2. as well. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.g. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.. 283). on one hand. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.g. gender.g. Therefore. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies. aggression). on the other hand.4. Within the generic model. extraversion. substance abuse) that. Factors within the distal context include not only road. 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. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. age. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. it may influence crash risk through some other.. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. By contrast.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. sensation seeking. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.5). contribute directly to crash outcomes. speeding.. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. Personality factors within the 43 .
sensation seeking. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics.g. As such. depression. psychological symptoms. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. e. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2003) 44 . such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.g.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 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. risk taking.
such that path c′ is zero. 45 . moderating or mediating effects. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. If. Tix and Barron. M. Figure 2. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 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. 2004). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier.4.6(i). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. called the outcome.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. proximal variables (including safety skill levels.2.2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. 2003). Also termed intervening variables. 2006). 1986). Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 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. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. In Figure 2. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. for instance.
or dependent. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). the impact of a moderator (path b). 2003). Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. 1986).(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. variable (see Figure 2. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny.7): the impact of a predictor. 46 . or testing the moderating effect. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. or independent variable (path a).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast.
In turn. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.4. psychoticism). more relevant to the model he proposed. errors). the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. verbal aggression. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. given wide 47 . dangerous drinking). he found that. anger). Further. and non-professional students who were mostly students. However. hostility. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. Using structured equation modelling. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. anxiety. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers.2. hostility. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression.
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Edward. 2002. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2003. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 1990) to a similar analysis. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. sensation seeking patterns. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Bell. 1919. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Here. conscientiousness (dependability. 1995.739). It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. in most cases. al. personality model (Costa & McRae. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Watson. 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. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. 2005. Finally. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. In a subsequent study. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. 1993). Greenwood & Yule.. applied the five factor. sensation seeking). broad-mindedness). lapses. Elander et. for high-λ individuals. McRae &Costa. trust). in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. responsibility. agreeableness (helpfulness. as recommended by Elander et al. Sümer’s early work did establish the usefulness of the contextual mediated model and structural equation modelling procedures in describing and predicting the mediational processes that connect certain driver psychosocial characteristics and crash outcomes. 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. Day. Sümer. Arthur. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . (1993) and others. Tubré & Tubré.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. or “Big Five”. 1920). 1998).
Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. Sümer. 225). perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. phobia. Bilgic. have acted on those recommendations. Berument and Gunes (2005). Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. material loss. using a similar research design. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. 49 . Karanci. They found that the effect of proximal variables. 2. reported that driver anger. optimism. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. including perceived control. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. prior to the present one. for instance. Sümer. anxiety. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators.4.aberrant driving behaviours. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies.2. In another study. air force and gendarmerie. self esteem. In other words. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. navy. hostility.
g.g.5.8). 2002. 1997. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 2007) 2. 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. Williams & Shabanova. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Weinstein & Solomon. Odero et al. 2003.Downe (2007). 1995).5. Yet.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1.. Type A. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. 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. 2003).. Retting.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.
Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. less emotionally mature. 1986). The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 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. However. Vassallo et al. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Bina. Harré. in many cases. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 2007). 2001. Connery & Stiller. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. tobacco smoking. at least in part. Jonah. the contrary appears to be true. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. The former is less experienced at driving. finding that the riskiest young drivers in an Italian sample were also more likely to have adopted a lifestyle characterised by higher involvement in antisocial behaviour. Billittier. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Jehle. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. In fact. follow too closely. overtake dangerously. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 2002a. Matthews & Moran. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. McDonald (1994) reported 51 .. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. drive while fatigued. p. 221). for these difficulties. this is a reflection of lifestyle. 1997b.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 2002a. Moscati. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends.
indirectly.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. 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. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 1999. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. In the present study. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. on crash and injury occurrence. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. it was hypothesised in the present study that. (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. Similarly. 2002). Vissers & Jessurun.39). risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. Justification of age-related hypotheses. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. as age decreased. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. Ulleberg. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 52 . and that young drivers. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Stevenson et al. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information.
MacGregor. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. it was also hypothesised that. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. self-reported injury would also increase. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Chipman. However. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. p. Monárrez-Espino. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. darkness)” (p. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths.4). 129).. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Waller.. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced.failure to use seat-belts. 2004. it 53 .g. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. 2. “In all studies and analyses. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. as well. Elliott. for instance. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. without exception. more often at hazardous times (e. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). for instance.g. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Shope. for instance. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.1. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. as age decreased. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women.5. Tavris. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk.
Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Woodcock. worldwide. 2001). state of Washington. At the same time. which typically took place during evenings and nights. Ball. to date. Flyte & Garner.S. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. 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. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Lenard. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). 1997. Welsh. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. for instance. found that while male drivers. Brown. 525526). Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. reported more traffic citations and injuries. Powers and McFadden (1999) noted that: The relevance of gender to road safety has long been recognised but it has been the contribution of men drivers to fatal and serious crashes which has. Lonczak. in a sample taken in the U. While there is much of value in such an approach. Dobson.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. 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. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . This is important. attracted the most attention … Road safety literature and road safety measures have tended to concentrate on men rather than women and the existing literature on women drivers tends to compare their behaviour with that of men. (b) females drive increasingly more.
Lourens et al. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. showing that male drivers were. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that males would be more likely to report higher-risk behaviour in traffic and would have higher aggression scores than would females.anger. just as they had in 1978. 2006. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. Laapotti. evaluated their driving skill lower. Forward. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. on the other hand. In other research. 55 . on crash and injury occurrence. Turner & McClure. and loss-of-control incidents. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. et al.. The authors in each case concluded that females’ attitudes and self-reported behaviour were becoming increasingly similar to the attitudes and behaviour of male drivers. (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. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). In a subsequent report. In a study of Dutch drivers. though. as per the traditional pattern. In the present study. were less frequently involved in crash situations. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. 2003). In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. McKenna. control of traffic situations. Female drivers. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. 11). indirectly.
Corry. Haliburton. for instance. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U.5. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. nonCatholic countries. 2005). Romano. lower rates of safety belt use. Levine. But.1. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Goldweig and Warren. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Summala and Hartley (1998). In one of the few studies reported. Marine. Harper. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Garrett. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado.S. differences in fatalities persisted. Lajunen. To a large degree. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. reported few differences between Australians and Finns.2. On the other hand. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Schlundt.
prosperity. 1999).. However. on crash and injury occurrence. They concluded that there were. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. harmony with nature. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Roman et al. Education. family honour. respect for elders. Spirituality. cultural differences can be more subtle. In the present study. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. hierarchical. Strong relationship orientation. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . polite behaviour. filial piety. face saving. Indirect communication. prosperity and integrity. respect for knowledge. Malay Differences have not always been consistent..have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. While religious affiliation. Conscious of what other people say about us. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. Family centeredness. shame-driven. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. humility. respect for elders. Table 2. Strong relationship orientation.2). indirectly. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. religion. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Fatalistic. 1999). piety. Karma. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. hard work. family ties. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. cooperation. peace. brotherhood/sisterhood. 2000.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. in fact. courtesy. 2005). respect for elders.
Hatakka and Katila. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. Lajunen & Summala. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. 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 . such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. journey lengths.2. and as such. etc. 2001). 2002). Laapotti. Keskinen. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 2. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. although not always. as drivers become more experienced. passenger distractions different vehicles.behaviour in traffic.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5. On the other hand.g. 166). Allied to this. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 1995. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. directionality of the effect was not predicted. in a given road and traffic scenario. As experience grows. 1971). with different weather conditions. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. increased experience usually. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. A large number of studies have shown that.5.
they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. It assumes that. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. 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. 1996. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver.by Keskinen. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. 59 . 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. 2001). experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked.9). Internal models contain knowledge of route. direction and position Figure 2. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 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.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. Yet. environment. in many studies of age and gender differences. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. 2004). Hatakka. as individuals acquire experience.
was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. was used in this study. 1954). the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Brown & Ghiselli. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. Young novice drivers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Peltzer and Renner (2003).. Mintz. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . 2007). such as problems in vehicle handling skills. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa.g. 2004). They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Ghiselli & Brown. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers.Laapotti et al. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. on the other hand. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. and especially young male drivers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. 1949. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. for instance. Female novice drivers. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. A simple measure of driving experience. 1948. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities.
5. 1971). and type of route where. Generally. 282). the concept is much less well developed. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. for instance. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. Duncan & Brown. Elander et al. 2. indirectly. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. Pelz & Schuman.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. First. 1986. Rothengatter. 1984). 2002a). with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. 2001. on crash and injury occurrence. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. McKenna. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).2. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 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. Wilde. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Second. the miles they drive. In individual differences research.. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. 1984. it is accepted that the more one travels. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . 1991). 1993). driving occurs (Dewar. 1995.
Towner and Ward. 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. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on crash and injury occurrence. 2007. (1986).. Williams & Shabanova. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Mercer (1989) showed that. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night.hours than during the forenoon. Bina et al. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. 2007. although much research does not (e. In the present study. Ferguson. Odero et al.. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. the driving frequency measure was used as a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variable and the proximal variables of the contextual mediated model. as defined by Elander et al. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Teoh & MCartt. Lourens et al.. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. in countries like the USA. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Cairns. 2006. Justification of exposure hypotheses. (1999) have argued that. without correcting for annual mileage. however. Evans (1991) and others. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. 2003). (1993). 62 . In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. indirectly. 2007).g. Christie. Yet.
Stanley & Burrows. or externals .5.3. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1975. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). 2006. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. In contrast. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. 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. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Holder & Levi.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. 1991. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 1999).3 Psychological Variables 2. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.1 Locus of Control 2. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people..18.104.22.168. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Levenson (1975.10). and second. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 15).g. 63 . people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1990).5. she separated the externality dimension into two. Hyman. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. or internals. 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.
Luckner. 1989. 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.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. According to Phares (1976).1. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Sinha & Watson.5. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 64 . They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.3.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. luck.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.
According to Brown and Noy (2004). Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. French & Chan. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. 1987). 65 .More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. 39). those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. but results have been inconsistent. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. In a subsequent study. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 1999). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. 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. however. however. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. On the other hand. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. 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. which focused heavily on situational scenarios.
leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. In a much earlier study. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. cognitive. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. offences. Arthur et al. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. In an important study. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. That is. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. although internality was unrelated to DDB. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. 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. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. (p. 1260). an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. They found that. Gidron. On the other hand. 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).
India. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. 122). Hsieh. and the USA. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. chance and fate are taken for granted in life.5. Noting that Chinese culture. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Italy. as hypothesised. Israel. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Canada and Japan.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. In very early research. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Their results. Noy (1997). complexity and unpredictability. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Japan. indicated that. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. is based on the notion that … luck. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Germany. which is considered to be full of ambiguity.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. France. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between.1. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale.3. 2. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. (1991).
a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. In very early research. To the author’s knowledge. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. all internal characteristics. Chinese and Indian populations. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. skill and ability. 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. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 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. 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. Cheung. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Chinese of Malay extraction. only Cheung. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. 68 . although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. 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. At the same time. This was very true for the locus of control variable.
Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (2003). 1997. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.3. Niméus. Ohberg. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 2. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. indirectly. First. In the present study. Finally. Kovacs and Weissman. 1975). given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Weissman. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. McMillan. et al. Özkan & Lajunen. 2005). 1975. without objective basis. Fox & Klerman. Gilbody. Montag & Comrey. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. 1991.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. 2007). on crash and injury occurrence. 1973). Sinha & Watson. Cases usually 69 . it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 2007. Beresford & Neilly.5. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. 1987. 1995.
in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Selzer & Payne. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. Prociuk. indirectly. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. and negatively predicted by extraversion. in a more detailed study. 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. 1997. Second. 1974). found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. it was 70 . luck. Firestone & Seiden. including risky driving. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. Several authors. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. on crash and injury occurrence. assertiveness and positive emotion. 1998. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 1962). Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. for instance. In the present study. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. investigated the relationship between hopelessness.. 1962). 1976. Henderson. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. 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.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Mendel. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. in fact. Breen and Lussier (1976). Very early on. 1990.
O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 1999. Richards.3. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 2000.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 2006). learned cognitive scripts.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Malta & Blanchard. 2. learned disinhibitory cues. Chapman. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. In a largely unrelated study. 71 . Koumaki. Wright & Crundall. Underwood. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2003. Demakakos. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. and deindividuation. Deffenbacher. Chliaoutaks. physiological arousal. Filetti. 2002). 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. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 2002. Barton and Malta. Lynch & Oetting. 2000.5. 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. Wells-Parker et al. Tzamalouka. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. & Darviri.. including subjective feelings of stress. Mizell. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Bakou. 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.
to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Houston. the display of aggression (p. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. though. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. lack of control over events. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. Snyder. through the use of self-statements. Ellis. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . Schwebel et al. as another. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. 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. Talley. This led to an interest in the sorts of self-talk in which individuals engaged under varying conditions and corresponded with the emergence of cognitive therapies (Beck. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Crowson.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Bettencourt. 1962). and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. More recently. However. Groeger (2000). Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. stress induced by time pressure. 1976. rather than a cause of. 163).
1985). Williams & Haney. indirectly. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. It was also hypothesised.6 2. Sato. Frueh & Snyder. Bettencourt et al. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Miyake. 1999. insecurity about status. Karlberg. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. on crash and injury occurrence. al. Blumenthal.6. competitiveness. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 2. Lynch. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kamada.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. Deffenbacher. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. 1981. Thurman. 1999. McKee. and specific content. 1998. 2006). 2002. 73 . 2001). that the total amount. aggression. Petrilli. impatience. James & Nahl. (2003). 1999). Sani.. In the present study. Kumashiro & Kume. 2000. Magnavita. Later still. Undén. Rice. 2006. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Carbone. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Narda. Elofsson & Krakau.
particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. gender. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Raikkonen. 1979) and number of accidents. however. category of vehicle. similarly. 1990). Zzanski & Rosenman. studied police officers in Italy. Nabi et al. driving style. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. 1989. West. 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. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. however. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. age. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. alcohol consumption. 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. Karlberg et al. In a correlational study of British drivers. but not with accident risk. Consoli. where Type A drivers were 4.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. In none of these studies. was driving frequency. Chastang. socio-professional category. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Chiron. Nabi. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). for instance.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. (1998). They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes.
6. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. 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). Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. In a subsequent study.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. At the same time. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation.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. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. on the other hand. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). 1977). then use of the Type A/B 75 . 2. Of the four BIT factors. ethnicity. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Miles and Johnson (2003). namely “externally-focused frustration”. Glass. Gender. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. as measured by the student version of the SJAS.
would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. 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. ethnicity. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. Similarly. on the other hand. though. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. In the present study. driving experience. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. 13). They argued that it would be preferable. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . although ethnicity. that are measured by the BIT scale. 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. To the author’s knowledge. locus of control. In neither of their studies. At the present time. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. including gender. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. hopelessness. Specifically.
Miles & Johnson. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. externally-focused frustration. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 2003. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence.hostile automatic thought. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 1993) and. 1986.. Further. 77 . freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas.. West et al. 2005. 1985).
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.3). 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.1). 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. 1B and 1C. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). aggression (see Figure 3. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. In Study 1B. Then. In Study 1C.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.2). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 78 . hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. each study explored the extent to which demographic. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. 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.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.
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
4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. Lester and Trexler (1974).5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). but not chance. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. affective. overlapping and ambiguous. 25). Weissman. 3.2. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. cognitive. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. For the purposes of the present research. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. In the present research. For each of the five studies undertaken. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. a thought process that expects nothing. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. 3.2. 1994). a separate score for internality (I). motoric and verbal components (Sharkin.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 1999).
were also investigated. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. Lynch & Morris. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. through fighting. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 2003. social alienation and paranoia. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . 1996). 2005). and. The effects of participants’ total aggression. In the present research. Deffenbacher. hitting or interpersonal violence. Vallières.2. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. 3. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. Specifically. Oetting. 1957.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Bergeron & Vallerand.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). expressed through the presence of irritability. frustration.
frequent lane changing. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. and. the BIT score. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. 3. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. competitiveness. hit or kill another individual.. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. 1998). was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.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. 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. (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.2.. characterised by excessive impatience.g. not allowing others to merge or overtake.
88 . to the extent of inattention conditions. three demographic variables (driver age. travel frequency. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then.. In the resulting measure of this variable.2. and. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 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.g.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the influence of driving experience. while driving. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). Then.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.3 3. In the resulting measure of this variable.them (e.3. in Study 1A. (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. 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. 3.2. 3.
3 Study 1C In Study 1C. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age. Then. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Figure 3.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Finally. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. 3. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 .3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. travel frequency. In this study. the influence of driving characteristics.3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. 3. Figure 3. In Study 1B. Then. hopelessness. 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. travel frequency. In this study. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. Then. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving characteristics.
Finally. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.3. the influence of experience. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then.3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. 3. In Study 3. In Study 3. and (b) taxi experience. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. This was justified for three reasons. First. 90 . Figure 3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. 3. Figure 3. Finally. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Then.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. 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. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Figure 3.
Third. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H22.214.171.124.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Second.2. 3.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.
Table 3.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: 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 H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H126.96.36.199: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.
3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 3. within a 14-month period. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. 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.Table 3. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .5. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.
with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. during a point to point trip. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.g. Stokols. 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.5. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. by postal mail. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Novaco. Stokals & Campbell.. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . 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. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. in the case of Study 3 participants. while participants were driving. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. In all cases. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.5. For inclusion in the study. 3. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.2.2 Research Instruments 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. 1978). Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Data collection took place within the taxicab.
2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. as indicated in table 3. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.” II.” “On a clear highway. Usurpation of right-ofway No. to school or to an appointment with someone. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “While travelling to work (or to school). 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Freeway urgency 14 III. In a later study.2. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. with a coefficient alpha of . Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.91) were found to be internally consistent. Table 3. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. On each form. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.80. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.
It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. A sample item is “When I get what I want. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.5. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. 96 .Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.2. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. 3. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. References to the faster. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).
Tanaka et al. I may tell them what I think of them. I may mess up someone’s work. 3.” 97 .” “I get into fights more than most people.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. 1974). 2005. if not. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “When people annoy me. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.2.3). 1982. 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”. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.5. and five subscales measure physical aggression. Durham. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. or 0. Table 3.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. if endorsed. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.5.3.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.” “When someone really irritates me. I might give him or her the silent treatment.” “If I’m angry enough. Of the 20 true-false statements. Beck et al. 1993. anger. 1996). 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. verbal aggression.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.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.
71 to . age. derogation of others and revenge respectively.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .5. Snyder et al.88 and .91 for physical aggression.92.2. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 98 . Shapiro.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.4). Table 3. Three factors – physical aggression.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 2000). 3. Cascardi & Pythress. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. 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. Williams. Boyd. with coefficient alpha values of . 5 = “all the time”). 1997.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.” “I want to get back at this person. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. gender. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. .” 188.8.131.52 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1997. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 1996).High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .
BHS. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Study 1C: PIF. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BIT scale. between the two forms of the BIT. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods.6 3. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. AQ and HAT.3. BIT scale and AQ. Levenson. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. in random order. Study 1B: PIF. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis.6. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. After the briefing period. Levenson and BIT scale. upon request. with an e-mail summary of results. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. Levenson. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. 99 . In studies 1 and 2. BHS. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. BHS.
approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. aged 22 to 24 years. The PIF was always administered first. For safety reasons. Data collection took place in taxicabs. 2004). 8. BIT. 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. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 13.3. analyses of variance (ANOVA). Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose.2 Study 3 For study 3. as well. At initial contact. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.5. Over the course of the trip. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. 2002). rel. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. 3. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 100 . Levenson Locus of Control scale. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.0. rel.5. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Two to four times daily. four female final-year undergraduate students.6. AQ and Levenson scales. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Independent-sample t-tests.
5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: “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.Table 3.
3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: 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 H13.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.Table 3.1: The higher the Internality.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.4: 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. the higher the BIT level H8. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.
5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. hopelessness. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.7.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. locus of control. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. 103 .7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present study.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. hopelessness. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. When significant differences were observed. 3. locus of control. 2000).
3. second. Also. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT).7. In the present research. hopelessness. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).3. 104 . to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.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. For instance. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.7. 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.7. In the present research. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. In the present research. if so.
Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . SEM was carried out.3. 710). as well as between several latent constructs” (p. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. logistic regression.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. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. In the present research. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. 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). “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.7.7. on the other hand. using LISREL. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables.7 Structural Equation Modelling. In the present research. 3. 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. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. That is. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables.
1998). in fact. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). If a researcher’s theory were perfect. including: (1) two absolute indexes. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. 1998) – presently exists. 2006. (1988). Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. For Study 1C. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. (Hair et al. Thus. According to Marsh et al. In the present research. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. the better the model is said to fit. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne.. 745). p. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration.
7. pp. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 1998). 3. an insignificant p-value is expected.7. the ratio indicates a good fit.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. one incremental index.validation index (ECVI). 107 . Thus. 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. the higher the probability associated with χ2. 3.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI).7.7.00 in which values greater than . when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. 2006). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). Hair et al. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 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.7. 2006).0. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).. and a measure of parsimony fit. However.7. 112).10 indicate poor fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 1998.1 Chi-Square (χ2).
the normed fit index (NFI. 108 . 3.7.00.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.00 with value closes to 1. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 2006). 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. 3. Thus. The index can range from zero to 1.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.7.00. 3. Bentler & Bonnet. an RMR greater than .7. The index ranges between zero and 1.7. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. Tanaka & Huba. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00.00 with value more than .7.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. with higher values indicating better fit. Values range from zero to 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00 being indicative of good fit.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.7.. 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.
2006. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Values range between zero and 1.00.7. James. Mulaik & Brett. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.7. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. considering its fit relative to its complexity. Like other parsimony fit indices. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.00. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 3.7. Although values range from zero to 1. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 2006). 109 . The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. in this case.3. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 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.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. It should be noted that. 1994). In such cases. p. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. Browne & Cudeck. 750)..7..7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.
in this case.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. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. In this case. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.05. 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. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.7. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. 1976). Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 3. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. If the opposite holds. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. p. 2000). 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.3. 1976.7. 1956). 37). it is said to be positively skewed.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution.
normality of variable distributions. 2005. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. Barrett & Morgan. 1997). A commonly used guideline is that. Marcoulides & Hershberger. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 111 .
The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). 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 4.4% 146 14.5% 6.5% 27. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.9% 23.1 Description of the Samples Age. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.55). with a mean age of 20. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.1% 562 57. Table 4.9% 14.4% 333 62.9% Total 441 100% 45. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.13 years (SD = 1.1: 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. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.6% 82 15. 4.1.1 4.5% 57.6% 15.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .1).4% 269 27.1% 536 100% 54. Then.1% 34.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1% 121 22.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.6% 12.3% 8.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.
with a mean age of 19. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. followed by Malay (27. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. Thus. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 25).43 years (SD = 1.53. range of 18 to 26).9 per cent). with a mean age of 20. 113 . range from 18 to 27).25 years (SD = 1. In Study 2.68. 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. In Study 1B.89 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 1C.35.5 per cent). In Study 3.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. range from 18 to 29). with a mean age of 20.63. In Study 1A.
19 years (SD = 11.3% of the sample.19 S.7 4. SD = standard deviation 4.5 8. Johor or Perak made up 53.3 11.65 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).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 % 12.68 1.43 19.65.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.2: Age.2 7.25 43.2. 1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. Table 4.35 1.89 20. Kuala Lumpur.5 114 . Table 4.63 11.9 2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.53 1.D.1.3). Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.01 20.4% of the sample. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.1 6. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. The mean age was 43.
6 2. Table 4.9 7.0 7.2 17.4: 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 % 13.0 10. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.8 11. Perak or Penang made up 50.6 1.9% of the sample.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.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.7 3.4 0.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.6 100 4.4). but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.2 3.8 9.8 5.1. As the sample was 115 .7 11.1 9.1% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9 0.7 100 4.5 1.1.2 2.4 4.5 14.
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.5). In the present research. 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. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 2000).2 4. 1978).2. 4. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. 116 . The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.
Table 4.749 .720 .906 .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.756 .783 .817 .714 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .707 .887 .720 .733 .742 .808 .830 .739 .747 .781 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .798 .741 .718 .711 .715 .811 .827 .740 .734 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .910 .881 α .715 .810 .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 .727 .904 .824 .783 .772 α .740 .788 .738 .782 .890 .754 .703 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .737 .702 .735 .727 .774 .782 .786 .808 .784 .730 .701 .
only Form A was used. 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. with minimal error variance caused by wording. Byrne.804 .80 or above).10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.05 indicate good fit.802 4. 118 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. depending on which is used (Byrne.807 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.803 . RMSEA values less than . 1998. In Study 3.857 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. more than . 1998).876 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.903 . 1998).953 .929 . 205).801 .808 Study 2 .807 Study 1B .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 . Table 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.2.804 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.804 Study 1C .6.958 . and those greater than . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.10 indicate a mediocre fit.80. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.2.916 .806 .805 .811 . 1998).08 to .4. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 1985).800 . values ranging from .
100.96 .054 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.98 .3.098 . freeway urgency.00 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.96 .077 .99 .90.000 .00 1.00 .00.92 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.070 .97 1.93 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.2. Table 4. RMSEA values in each case were less than .000 . A third statistic.91 .00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation .000 .097 .99 .00 . If the value of CFI exceeds .97 .000 .061 .00 1.98 1.95 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).98 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 .00 .00 1.074 .98 .000 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.097 . and destination-activity orientation.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 . indicating good fits.024 . 1992).98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. 4.00 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.99 .00 1.00 1.00 .96 .000 .97 1.048 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 (the closer to 1.90.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI.92 .047 .000 .7.99 .089 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.91 .00 1.92 1. externally-focused frustration.000 . As shown in Table 4.96 1.00 1.00 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .
99 .93 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.8. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. and both GFI and CFI were more than . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).00 .91 .93 .93 .081 .083 .92 . Table 4.081 .052 .93 .073 . verbal aggression (VER).93 .97 .000 .91 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).058 .096 .091 .90.95 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 .063 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).98 .4.98 .3.3. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.97 .98 .99 . anger (ANG). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.085 .93 .030 .95 1. indicating good fits (See Table 4.91 . RMSEA values were less than .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .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).100.2.071 .96 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .92 .085 .2.96 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.92 .96 .059 .95 .
083 .93 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .96 .99 .9). A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.94 .081 .(IND). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .96 .025 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.088 .98 .98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).97 .90.070 .070 .97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .98 .97 .97 . Table 4.92 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .96 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.97 .073 . derogation of others and revenge.92 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.098 .3.98 .2. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .94 .95 .088 .081 .096 .95 .97 .98 .098 .058 .98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.095 .90.10).98 .100.98 .089 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .047 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.055 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 . RMSEA values were less than .92 .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 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .090 .98 .97 . Table 4.
126(.140) .280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) -.297(.146(.126(.179(.656(.082 (.241(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.511(.379(.560(.297 (.140) -.107) 1.091(.409(.353(.099(.297(.256 (.403(.239 (.140) .280) -.280) .280) .140) .140) -.020 (.179(.280) .091) 1.280) .280) -.102) 1.140) -.140) -.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 .410(.120) 1.140) -.260) .280) .219 (.183) 1.192(.107 (.064(.190) 1.191) 1.099) 1.037(.280) -.560(.280) -.105 (.034 (.11: Normality Tests.280) -.280) .962 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) . Table 4.280) .099) 1.4.140) -.280) -.246(.582(.064) 1.022 (. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>..186) 1.052) 1.010 (.351 (.094 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data. Table 4.408(.204(.085 (.140) -.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -.280) .920(.057) 1.085) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.080(.278(.3 Normality.140) -.085 (.154(.332 (.140) ..106) 1.099(.183) 1.140) .280) -.195 (.453(.05).226 (.192) 1.323 (.069) 1.280) -.280) -. 2005.140) .091(. In all cases.278(.140) .140) .331(.085) 1.409(.280) .805(.875(.140) -.188(.719(. 2006).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. 1997).356 (.064(.280) .140) .428) .
138(.306) -.417) -.306) .306) .362(.338 (.120(.270) 1.435) -.210) -.959 (.153) .064) 1.102) .986 (.417) -.106(.375) 1.210) 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 .264) .417) -.101) 1.186(.913(.247) .210) .048(.952(.435) -.030(.414(.266 (.153) 983(.110 (.537(.159(.324(.219) .435) -.195 (.210) .154) -.053(.198(.306) -.147(.052) 1.113 (.153) .106(.321) 1.962 (.822 (.435) -.812(.435) -.142(.247) 1.540(.210) -.681(.978(.417) .153) .948(.293 (.799(.360) .940(.156(.131(.640(.128 (.130(.847 (.210) .024 (.370(.972(.219) -.147(.244(.915(.360) .022 (.Table 4.277(.236(.153) .051) .210) .024 (.160 (.805 (.423(.267) .503(.306) .451(.295(.417) .360) -.219) -.210) .210) -.962(.153) .426) .062(.629(.187) 1.360) .979(.022 (.417) -.719(.497(.001 (.306) -.973(306) .153) .417) -.306) -.214) 1.099) 1.084) 1.219) .219) .467(.219) .417) .327 (.567(.306) .715(.052) 1.128) .279 (.306) .852(.478(.256(.007(.153) -.153) -.852(.153) .051) 1.533) .157) .567(.003 (.153) .006(.392(.469) 1.297 (.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) .913 (.100) .219) .417) .435) -.098) 1.057) 1.317) 1.463(.153) .919 (.359 (.135) 1.417) -.088 (.210) .501(.417) -.443(.911 (305) 1.265) 1.354 (.011 (.994(.359 (.276(.366) 1.510) 1.276 (.210) .153) .306) -.223 (.153) .209(.807 (.417) -.070 (.210) .713(.366(.138) 1.435) -.306) -.053(.219) -.106 (.300(.259) .435) .884(.098) 1.271(.841(.104) 1.
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. 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. column b). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. Table 4. 124 .13).12.4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. column c). For motorcycle drivers. However. injury occurrence was much higher.12. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (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. column a).12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.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.3 per cent being hospitalised. if so. with 44.
14: 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 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. Table 4.Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.
15 shows means.5 4.4. 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. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.05).17 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.05). and destination-activity orientation. Also. freeway urgency. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. externally-focused frustration. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.16 shows means. Table 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. in Study 1B. crash occurrence and crash injury. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 126 . Study 1B. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. However. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Study 1C.5.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal.
345** 1 -.147* .76 3.186** .662** 1 .23 2.342** -.544** -.562** -.147* -.231** .381** .804** .280** .Table 4.278** .416** 1 .482** .818** 1 .036 .442 1 -.15: Means.08 2.247** .57 4.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .306** .78 .553** -.388** .69 24.566** 1 -.391** -.44 4.218** .97 43.376** .435** . 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.2691 6.316** .246** .00 165.04 26.209** 1 .405** .339** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.027 1 .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .901** .942** 1 .3455 .371** .96 19.191** .476 .471** .5 5.533** .D.211** .516** 1 -.202** .749** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .52 34.239** .45 6.396** .152** .201** .716** .513** .340** .58 .376** .129* .155** .64 7.88 7.625** .22 3.434** .
355** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .159 -.84 7.294** 1 .520** .9 28.452** .099 .324** .363** .401** .84 5.028 .842** 1 .25 8 18.602** 1 .14 4.347** 1 -.334** .531** .00 14 19.393** .343** .489**.521** .382** 1 -.16: Means.369** .496** .162** .55 9 21.22 4.514** .448** .039 .172** .440**.240** .816** .286* .376** .386** .762** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.254** .408** .763** .172** .414** .418** .48 3.82 7 13.550** .013 1 .380** .434** .003 .Table 4.56 2 4.157** .407** 1 -.173* .491** .319** .355** .200** .50 5.400** .331** .268** .491** .463** .254** .60 10 16.9 12 71.213** .353** .D.855** .271** .3079 .276** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .540** .310** .272** .816** .150** .358** .4960 17 .66 3.140* .225** .461** .411** .5695 .69 8.153** .254** .298** .342** .148* .213** .9 13 46.91 15 27.278** 1 -.86 6.355** .071 .067 -.430** .5 6 17.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .372** .518** .343** .103 -.584** -.523** .341** .337** .586** .403** .516** .438** 1 .515** .443** .335** .697** 1 .41 3.580** 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 .028 -.462** .555** .85 9.542** .445** .366** .312** 1 -.921** .279** .176* .43 12.103 -.779** 1 -.380** .688**.06 3 2.089 -.4624 1 -.051 .178** .481** .167** .587** 1 -.53 19.236** .147** .338** .669** 1 -.509** .731** .45 5 87.195** .331** .97 4 4.48 5.378** .505** .964** 1 .213** .444** .847** .275** .
081 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.178** .Table 4.367** .323** .192**.85 19.49 6.183** .230 .392** .296** .016 .202** .42 3.00 -.196** .565** .191** 1 3 .862** .076 .268**.186** .451** .518** .390** .89 5.465** .251** .78 8.58 9.246** .304** .120 .222** .228** .278** .526** .141* .434** .531** 1 10 16.228** .7 -.221** .183** .296** .D.516 .264** .483** .286** .139** .314** .18 -.387** .508** .530** .80 17.804** .7 28.166** .245** .109 .181** .259** .424** 1 12 18.446** .364**.895** 1 13 26.31 -.275** .218** .338** .302** .9 -.476** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.288** .151* .641** 1 4 4.05 -.320** .735** .185** .349** 1 16 67.293** .402** .119* 1 21 .241** .230** .158** .183** .17 -.484** .033 .03 5.11 12.70 1 2 4.366** .150* .199**.224**.278** .348** 1 6 16.454** .275** .306** .592** .377** .235** .64 -.254** .343** .103** .277** .357** .189** .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 .261** .356** .292** .725** .263** .277**.395** 1 11 65.8 -.422** 1 9 22.166** .422 -.151* .307**.343** .075 .150* .281** .229** .227** .294** .506** .86 -.254** .383** .101**.355** .456** .258** .193**.423** .52 7.304** .271** .412** .224** .298** .364** .221** .69 -.137* .354** 1 5 88.97 -.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .203** .189** .191** .235** .241** .545** .296** .17 -.259** .342** .051 .069 .385** .98 4.095 .36 -.209** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .291** .106 .38 5.03 -.199** .109 .534** 1 18 19.370** .095 .324** .745** 1 7 13.110 .368** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .250** .81 5.428** .281** .81 -.270** .401** .311** .265** 1 19 25.481** .310** .230** .378** .202** .448** .313** .-181** .308** .174** .37 6.216** .038 .588** 1 14 20.305** .501 .148** .270** .226** .502** .70 8.212** .082 .131* .292** .210** .413** .615** .277** 1 8 19.747** .67 7.219** .003 .167** .838** .856** 1 17 43.17: Means.057 .31 3.252** .70 3.130** .9 -.379** .345** .306** .192** .340** .402** .210**.91 -.749** .404** .373** .162**.
4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Similar to observed results in study 1A. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.5. 130 .18 shows means.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. However. all BIT subscales. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. 1B and 1C. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.
4683 .485 11.025 -.139 .500** .349** .200* -.182* -.165 .323 23.66 5.758** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .562** 1 .367** .580** 1 .264** .18: Means.D.240** .259** .630** .Table 4.251** .111 -.409** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.415** .334** .201* .081 8.66 1.122 7.06 20.314** .418** . 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.4966 1 .290** .072 .325** .317** .167 .192* -.035 3.48 5.6803 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .150 -.76 48.55 175.428** .269** .376** .917 3.183* 1 .374** .535** 1 .219** .233** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .750** .179 7.291** .941** 1 .383** .043 .371** -.028 1 .226** .5738 8.614** .14 27.356** .413** 1 .621 3.212* .50 73.876** .880 .232** .413** .313** 1 .30 .
BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. 1B.19. In this study.19 shows means.5. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Differing from Studies 1A. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In general. 1C and 2. 132 . verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. standard deviations and relationships between distal. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.4. As indicated in Table 4. However. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. correlations between I and distal.
161 -.74 15.263** .246** .152 .148* .31 8.324** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .07 8.095 .604** .236** .45 19.51 3.023 .128 .213** .235** .643** .275** .292** .261** .149 .141 .204* .404 .371** .3 6.636** .807** .071 .576** .528** 1 .072 .99 10.257** .443** 1 .117 .245** .254** -.42 66.05 3.229** .060 -.106 .88 1 .025 -.116 .070 -.120 .54 11.D. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.060 .13 3.182* -.864** 1 .271** .156 .172** .218* .82 11.222* .200* .65 75.193* -.15 32.018 -.072 -.08 15.030 .091 -.19: Means.43 8.286* 1 .401** -.521** .Table 4.240** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .177 1 .149 .197* .234** .721** .171 .749** .039 .658** .194* .040 .11 15.84 2.268** .418** .17 20.0301 .092** .173* .255** .240** .32 3.103 .153** 1 .373** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .032 1 .338** 1 .4 5.853** .067 .121 .165 .454** .117 .109 -.020 .112 -.114 .82 5.213** .023 -.622** .121 .147** .178** .061 .091 .117 .013 .646** .32 7.151 -.816** .235** .289** 1 .2000 .10 1.378** 1 .225** .561** 1 .048 .276** .06 2.35 11.588** 1 .12 4.618** 1 .194* 1 .166 .156 .054 .872** .150** .167** .028 . 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 12.180** .
095. Study 1B: B=. p<.1.095.088 p<.01 B=. p<. For the destination-activity factor.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=.4.01 Study 3 B=.146.041. and externally-focused frustration.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=. These results supported H1. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. p<.01 B=.102. Study 1C: B=.01 B=. p<.01 Study 1B B=.315.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01 B=.01 B=.1). p<.20).090.01 and Study 3: B=. Table 4.238.120. Study 2: B=. p<. p<. but not destination-activity orientation. p<. 4.6. H1. p<. 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=.1. p<.229. p<. p<.1 through H1.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.080.180.01 Study 1C B=.1.3 inclusive. freeway urgency. p<.4 was not supported.01.048. p<.063.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.125.01 B=.278. p<.063.01).1.034. p<.202.117. p<.04.135. p<. These results supported H1. p<.172. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01.01 134 . p<. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01.01 B=.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.
087. p<. These results supported H1. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.165. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. p<.074.01 B=.24.01 B=. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. Table 4. respectively).01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.05 Study 1B B=.01 B=.01.118. 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=.091.01 B=.158. Study 1B: B=. Study 1C: B=.035. p<. p<.095. p<. p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<.075 p<.033 p<.01 B=. 135 .019. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.064. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.035.01 B=. p<. p<. Table 4.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01. freeway urgency.054.01 B=.120.2.01 B=.01 B=.23 and Table 4. p<.038.069.01 and Study 2: B=.6.2 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.140.01 Study 1C B=. p<.01).22.21: 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=.01 B=.059.21).
35 24.64 27.92 157. * p<.73 170.35 155.25 25.68 26.77 8.41 167.60 185.43 20.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.82 33.30 22.35 33.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.16 3.48 171.Table 4.32 28.01.184** 136 .35 4.56 175.05.88 28.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.25 5.82 168.44 178.31 161.64 26.77 165.98 171.06 19. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.29 21.03 25.15 161.50 28.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.600** Table 4.52 25.32 147.89 21.98 33.
00 14.01).73 157.05). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01). about once every two weeks (p<.01). In Study 2. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. In Study 1C. and those who almost never travelled (p<. * p<.81 167. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.61 165.24: 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<.29 15. 137 . drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.52 3.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.77 16.14 15.01.12 161.00 16. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.73 24. Drivers who travelled every day 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<.05.12 154.01).Table 4.06 160. On the other hand.39 19.05).25).01 14.53 17. In Study 1B.01).88 167.060** In Study 1A.06 8. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.05).345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.
859 11. * p<. N.60 72.31 2. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .528** In Study 3. In other words.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<.437 (N. However.31 78.33 78.56 3.50 24.09 15.63 1.27 14. * p<.01.55 73.68 20.89 20.74 77.05.65 73.50 184.381 10.316 1.81 22.55 10.920 (N.S.71 168.81 161.52 172.26 10.97 8.37 9.26). However.47 5.753* 38 48 27 20 77.81 175. 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. N. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.64 24. Table 4.Table 4.01.80 22.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.82 162. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.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<.58 188.05.62 10. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.94 20.S.S) Therefore. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.
4. 1B. In this case. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.6. however. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. only H2.2.1 and H2. only H2.been predicted by H2. In Study 2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A. ethnicity and age – were investigated. though. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. the lower was the total BIT score. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. 1B. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. For ethnicity. 1C and 2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.1 was confirmed.27). In Study 3. 139 . the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. ANOVA results for age.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Again.2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
however. H3. Study 2 t=3. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Study 1C t=3. 1C and Study 2.2 was confirmed.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. p<.01 F=8. Study 1B t=2.3 was not supported. p<. 4.05). p<. In Study 1B.53.1 and H3. p<. N. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).S.562.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.68. N.2 were confirmed. N. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.05. N.99.S. N.9.Table 4.05 F=4. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.01 F=.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<.05. In Study 3. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.81. In all studies. p<. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.56. In Study 1A and Study 2.01 F=1. In Study 1C. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.12.44.05).01 F=9. Therefore. H3.01).01 F=2. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 F=19. In Study 1B. p<. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. p<.98.S. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H184.108.40.206.S.05 F=11. t(250) = 2.00. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.66. male 140 . p<.
01 respectively. F(2. E and P scores. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05). p<. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.05 and p<.01). 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. 1C. p<.476.05). Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 299) = 3. 298) = 3.503.05 respectively. F(2.490. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 1B. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05 respectively. 299) = 5.01).05. p<.370. In Study 1A.05. 249) = 3. 298) = 6. t(299) = 2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 2. 119) = 5.462.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. t(120) = 2.05 and F(2. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. F(2.05 and F(2. For Studies 1A. p<.527. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.01. F(2. 141 .941. p<.01 respectively). Consistent with findings in Study 1A. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 298) = 3. F(2.566. p<. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.041.
In Study 1.6. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. that age influences hopelessness.1. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2 and H4. H4.1. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. In addition.2.3 were supported. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported. in Study 2. 1B or 1C. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. H220.127.116.11 was supported.Therefore.1 and H5.05. so H4. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.079.3. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. H4. p<. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. Therefore. However. H5. H4. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. H5.3.01).2 and H4. 142 .1. 4.2. t(120) = 2. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. were supported.3. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.
01 and B = . H6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.290.2 and H6. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .186.6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively). p<.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.254.01 respectively). In Study 2. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.01 and (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. H6.371.01. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.3.306.01 and B = . H6. 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. 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 4.2 and H6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. p<. respectively). internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. were supported. In Study 1C.1. H6.342. p<. p<.341. that internality would influence hopelessness.239.01. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1. In Study 1B. p<. were supported. p<.28). p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. 143 .254. p<.3.01.354. respectively). p<. was not supported.01 and B = .312.4. Therefore. p<. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.
p<. p<. p<. p<. In Study 1B.1. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01 B=.275. H7. B=.317.191. p<.Table 4. H7.153. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. externally-focused frustration (B = .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=.2. p<.01 B=. Therefore. p<.01).141. p<.01).288. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. the higher the hopelessness scores. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.254.3 and H7. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01).01 B=. In Study 1C.157. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<. p<. p<.247. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. p<.05). freeway urgency (B =.05 Study 1C B=.157.4.317. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=. p<. p<.01). p<.280. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.01 B=.280. H7.01).01 B=. 144 .151. p<.S. p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .278. p<.191.275. N. p<. p<.01 B=. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01 B=.05 B=.01 B=. freeway urgency (B = .415.01). p<.415.05) but not for freeway urgency.151.151.05 In Study 1A.01 Study 1B B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .01 B=. p<. p<.153.349. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.318.104.22.168.05 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .05). that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.141.287.099. p<. 1C and 2. In Study 2.01). freeway urgency (B = .200. was supported in Studies 1A. p<.418.232. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.232.05 Study 2 B=.01 B=. p<.05). p<.287.
results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. N. p<. p<. Table 4. p<. p<.625.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. p<.2. the lower were mean total BIT scores. N.168. p<.239.01 B=. p<.178. p<.01 B=.01 B=. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. B=. With regard to H8.336.S. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.229.01 B=-. H8.01 B=-. p<. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. that the higher the subscale score for I.1.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.6.29).297. H8.01 B=-.01 B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.753.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. 145 .1 and H8.208.3. where only H8. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.2 and H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).01 B=.05 B=. Therefore. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<.4. B=.2.01 B=.01 B=.S. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. but not H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.006. N. With regard to H8.044.339.1. p<.S.388. p<.3.1. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.077. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.01 B=-.315.
704.710.909. F=4.2). F=7.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. 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.05. =8. 146 .Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. p<. p<.1).272. 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. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.01 (see Figure 4.01 respectively (see Figure 4. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. In Study 1C.01 and F=8. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. p<.1). p<.01 (see Figure 4. F=4. Further. p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.581. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.
05. multiple regression showed mixed results. 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=.00 66.6.033.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.444.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. F=4. 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. p<. B = . in Study 2.05.034.00 68. p<.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.3). Kurtosis=-.327. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. First. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. 1B and 1C.00 62. R2=.282. However.00 64. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.
01. p<. 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 4.3: 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=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. F=18.070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.4).4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.608.463.371).167. p<.459. B = . and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.01. R2=.
mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<.31). and t(250) = 2.S. 1C and 3.820. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. In Study 1C.603.01 t=4.480. N. Table 4. p<. and H9.210.677. F(2. p<.01 (see table 4.01.690.S t=1. were supported. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .603. 4. N.2.032.S t=2.1. N. p<. t= .467.780. In both studies. In Study 1B and Study 3. However. N. the H9. p<.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.Therefore.521.187.690.01 t=2. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. t(300) = 2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.6. p<. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.05 t=4.01 t=2. 249) = 5.30).164. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.05 respectively.298.05 t=. however.01 t=-. With motorcycle drivers.S t=2.
N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S. 150 . F(2. N.S. 299) = 4. N.S. N. F=5. F=2.S.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. F(2.567.S.01). the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.05 Study 1C F=5.S. 249) = 10. N. N. mean IND scores of Malay.422.561. p<.S.155.01). In Study 1B. N.01). N.01 F=2.01.804.S.S. Table 4.432. 299) = 5. mixed results were found. N. F=2. F=4. p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.564. p<.432.021.S. N.521.526. F=1. F=2.S.05. In Study 3. F=1. p<.763. p<.041.629.398.182. F(2. N.041. N.S.632. N. F=1.57.904.01 F=. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01).01 Study 3 F=1. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S F=10.S. F=. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F=1. p<. p<. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.01. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.077.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. 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. F=1. In Study 1C. F=2.
H11. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. In Study 3. H11.2. H10.4.29). H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. In Studies 1B and 1C.3 and H11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. externally-focused frustration. 151 . However. however. H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. freeway urgency. were all supported. Therefore. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. only H11. VER and IND subscale scores. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. 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. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.1. were supported.32).3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.4. was supported. The higher the total aggression scores. respectively. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. freeway urgency. 4. H10. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.Therefore. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.3 and H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.
05 (see Figure 4. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<. 1C.183.387.263.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.385. p<.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. B = . B = . p<. respectively. p<.540. Also. p<. the higher were total BIT scores.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 respectively. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. B = .491. B = . p<.01.505. p<. 1B. p<.461. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. Study 1C and Study 3.545. However. B = .01 Study 3 B=.520. respectively. N.01. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. B = . but not in Study 3. and B = . p<.01. p<. p<.01 B=.05 B=. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. 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.S.01 Study 1C B=.565.Table 4. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.01.048.121.881. Similarly. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. Study 2 and Study 3. but not in Study 3.229.01 respectively. p<.S. p<.01.370.370. p<. p<.5).01. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.438. p<.05 B=.01 B=.216.01 B=.204. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.324.01 B=. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=. N. p<.380. p<.263. p<. p<.01 and B = .01 B=. p<.483. B=. and B = . F=3.01 and B = . When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<.428.235.
R2=.271. respectively. p<. F=100.00 46.961.172.12.00 42. The moderating effect of I was significant.362. R2=.316. B=-. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. Kurtosis=-.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .00 44. p<. p<.05.929.516. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.645.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.6. for Study 1B. and B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. F=81. Kurtosis=-.100.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.297.01. 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. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. In other words.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. B=-.01.01.003.076. p<.131.6.
R2=.369. R2=.069. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. B = . 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=.297. Kurtosis=-.704. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.088.12.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.897. In Study 1B. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. p<.297.694. R2=. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.015.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. Kurtosis=.431. Kurtosis=-. p<.606. p<.271. F=78. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.117. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.757. respectively). F=91.6.6).01.01. R2=. Kurtosis=.507.794. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.01. F=94.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.271. respectively). F=71.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.360.015.01 and B = . R2=.387.01 respectively. p<. p<.109. R2=.
332. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.302. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .01 and B = .1.significant. p<. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. H12. and the moderation effect was not significant. 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. and H12.7). hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. B = .3. that the internality. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.2. Therefore.01 respectively. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.
t(249)=2.13 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.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. p<. F(2. 4.343.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.885. 156 .6. p<. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.314. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Only H12. Also. H122 and H12.01.279. with the sample of taxicab drivers. p<.737. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. and about revenge F(2.1.01. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.263. p<.05. 249) = 4. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.3.01). 248) = 3. However. 249) = 5.05).05. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. p<. t(250) = 3. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.01 but not on about the derogation of others. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.05).
B = .01 and destination-activity orientation. was supported. B = . that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. This means that. on total BIT score were also tested. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. p<. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. was partially supported. freeway urgency. This means that. 157 . p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.224. H13.413. p<.Therefore.2 and H14.2. the higher were total BIT scores. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.3.01. were supported. B = . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.01.394. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H14. 4. H13. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.307. p<. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<.1 and H13. the higher the total HAT scores.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. was not supported. B = . p<. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. respectively.01. were supported.277. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01.01.01 and B = . p<. B = . Therefore. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.3.01. externally-focused frustration.364.1.192. H14. p<. B = .6.379.
01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. 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 4.4. R2=.565. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=.013.085). also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.911.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.002. F=57. Kurtosis=.188. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.6. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297.-554.01. F=55. p<. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.05.297. In other words.072). and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<. B = .8). Physical Aggression and Revenge. R2=. This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among automobile drivers with high total HAT scores than it would be among drivers with low total HAT scores. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.809.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.
Kurtosis=. p<.1 and H15. was not supported.092).01.475. H15.2.294. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.6. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.297. was supported. were supported. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<. B = .026. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Therefore. 4.01.246. B = .01. R2=.33).Aggression was significant.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. However. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. H15.207. F=59. 159 . p<.
S.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S S S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S 160 .Table 4.S P.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.S 1C P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S N.S N.1.S N.2.3.S S S S S N.S S S S S N.S P.S P.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.22.214.171.124.1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S N.S N.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.S S S 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 N.S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.S N.S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S S S S P.S N.S N.S 3 P.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S S N.1.S S S S S S N.S S S N. S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S S P.S S N.S S S N.2.
S N.S P.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.Table 4.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S 3 N.S N.3.S P.S S N.S S S N.S= Not Supported.S N.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S S N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S S S S S N.S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.S STUDY 1C N. P.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9. N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S P.S P.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S S S S P.S 2 N.S N.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S 161 .S N.S S S N.S N.S 1B N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.
1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S S S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S N.S= Not Supported.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Partially Supported. N. P.S 162 .33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.Table 4.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S S N.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S N. 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.
C.58 35. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. BHS I.060 Note: Internality (I). F2. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.087 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.93 .1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.f. e. F4 F1. HAT Proximal Factors F1. F4 F1.80 104.90 110.96 . AQ. C. 4. AQ I. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F3 F1. P.93 . F3. Hopelessness.34.00000 . HAT I. BHS.93 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.045 . Aggression (AQ). F2.97 . F4 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).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 8.00000 . F3.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F2.102 .068 . Study 2: motorcycle driver. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P. two were worthy of further examination. 2002). C.7. freeway urgency. P. P. P I.00000 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.02 d.00126 . Externality Chance (C). F2. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. freeway urgency (F2). F3. P.97 63. C. 163 .38 100. Hopelessness (BHS).093 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. F2. F3. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. F4 F1.g. C.00111 . C.4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2. F3. F4 χ2 49. AQ. BHS. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.05522 . HAT I.96 RMSEA . Table 4. AQ.
02. RMSEA=.10).26. An alternate model.96. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. For Model C5. For Model C6.97. Externality (Chance). GFI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. 164 .=24.23 respectively (see Figure 4.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. CFI=. AGFI=.32.92) on accident involvement. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.48. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. which are detailed in sect.043.94.29 and .35. .f. but not as good as for C5.42. For Model C6.060. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. To aid this discussion. RMR=.26. For Model C5. RMR=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.51 and PGFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. . .destination-activity orientation (F4). Externality (Powerful-Other). Externality (Chance).42. CFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C6. d. .92) on accident involvement.3. RMSEA=. GFI=. values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).045. with path coefficients = -.91. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.97. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. ECVI=.10). Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. d. 5.98).96. ECVI=.043.97. with path coefficients = -. and PGFI=. AGFI=. .126.96.36.199 respectively (see Figure 4.=33.f. of the BIT score.28 and .
97 GFI=.92* Accident Involvement .57* Injury Occurrence .99 P-value = .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . *p<.29* Aggression (AQ) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .045 RMR=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.58* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .f =24 CFI=.79* .63* .97 d.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.51* .32* Externality (Chance) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.
00126 N=252 RMSEA=.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.63* .98 P-value = .060 RMR=.77* .92* Accident Involvement .10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.31* Externality (Chance) .56* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . *p<.39* .96 d.50* .02 GFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.58* Injury Occurrence .f =33 CFI=.
f.80) on the accident involvement.95). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F4 F1. HAT-R PHY.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. CFI=. HAT-P.00000 . Angry (ANG). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).92 .081 .41 d.91. ANG. freeway urgency (F2). Hostility (HOS). HOS. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. F2.In addition. F2. F3 F1. Verbal aggression (VER).66 153. HAT-D. F2. HAT-P.66 131. HAT-P. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.65 and . HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.=61. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . RMSEA=. HAT-R PHY. ANG. F3. 167 . the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.91 .080 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).73 169.91 . HAT-D. VER.94 169. ANG. d. F3. 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).084 .00111 . F4 F1. F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). IND. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.10. HOS. IND PHY. HOS. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. IND. HOS. F4 χ2 108.078.00000 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. IND. path coefficients = . Aggression (AQ). Indirect aggression (IND). ANG.91 . IND. ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. F2. HAT-D. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. F2.00000 GFI RMSEA . HOS. F3. GFI=.13 respectively.35). Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).f.084 . HAT-P. HAT-D.41. VER. VER.66).00000 .93 . HAT-R PHY.
05 .69* Anger .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .61* .63* Indirect Aggression .62* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .66* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.000 N=252 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.58* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.65* .91 d.80* Accident Involvement .72* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .95 P-value = .078 RMR=.29* Hostility . *p<.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.41 GFI=.83* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .f =61 CFI=.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
058 .7. F2.4. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. Hopelessness (BHS).2 Study 2 In Study 2. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.94. RMSEA=. Externality Chance (C).12). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).f. freeway urgency (F2).98). P.f. 169 . d.65 and . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.33 33.95 . C.86 23 28 23 .062 Note: Internality (I).06722 .66) on the accident involvement. Externality Powerful-Other (P).94 . F2. BHS F1. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). C.36). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.94 .12. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. path coefficients = -. BHS I. F3.12 d. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F4 39.=28.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. F2. C. p-value GFI RMSEA I. P I. F4 F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.80 respectively (see Figure 4. GFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3. F3 F1. the participants were motorcycle drivers. P. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. CFI=.047 .047.07580 .17631 .
BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.78* .65* Externality (Chance) .95 d.99 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12 GFI=.047 RMR=.17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =23 CFI=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.57* Internality -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .70* BIT4 .89* .83* BIT3 .88* Crash Occurrence .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).37). P. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. but not Externality. F2. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.06743 . C.95.97 .f.59 17 . I. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F3. F2.93 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. GFI=.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.7. F3. Externality Chance (ExC).061 Note: Internality (I). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.20 and . C. F3. the participants were taxi drivers.13).82 28 . F2. AQ F1.00524 . C. AQ F1.061. F2. C.f. P Proximal Factors F1. freeway urgency (F2). F4 50.03084 . 37.4.=21.40) on the accident involvement.20 respectively (see Figure 4. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. RMSEA=. Hopelessness (H).94 . 171 .027 I.22 23 . F3. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Internality and AQ. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.39 21 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). AQ F1. P.35265 .39.95 .3 Study 3 In Study 3.95).068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. path coefficients = -. d. CFI=.079 Injury Occurrence I. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.
39 GFI=.13 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.74* -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.f =21 CFI=.61* BIT4 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.20* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.061 RMR=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.63* BIT3 .95 P-value = .39* Internality -.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .
2 and 3 are satisfied. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. consistent with path analysis results.39). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. 4.4. and.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.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. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. Table 4. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 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.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.38). 173 . Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.8. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Therefore.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.
Table 4. 1B and 1C.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.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. where the 174 . in Studies 1A.8.40). behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.41). Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.8. Table 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.
BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. 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.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. C or P and the two crash outcomes. Table 4. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). p <.01.Table 4.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7.9.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. p <. Study 1B vs.162. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 2: t(422)= 8. p <. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.665. p <.05.01. p <.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 2: t(372)= -3. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1A vs.837.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.442.663. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8. p <.426.01. Study 1A vs.993.01. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(422)= -2. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. 176 .
01. Study 2: t(372)= -6. p <.402. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.01. p <. t(986)= 37. 177 . p <. p <. 4. Study 1C vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. “freeway urgency”.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7.775. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. Study 1B vs.801. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. and to injury occurrence.747. Study 2: t(421)= -3. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.861. Study 2: t(372)= -7.9. t(986)= 5.01. p <.186. t(986)= 34. and t(986)= 35.01. p <. Study 1B vs. respectively.01.926.01.01. Also. Study 1A vs.200.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. t(986)= 7.577.01. 4. Study 1A vs.261. t(253) = 2.9.687. p <. p <. t(986)= 6. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <.01.433. p <. t(986)= 3.977. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Study 2: t(421)= -8. t(986)= 30. p <.837.01.484.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= -5. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.01. p <. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6.211. p <. t(253)= 8. p <.01.01.704.01.614. Study 1C vs. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.
t(253)= 31. t(253)= 39. Also. p <. “freeway urgency”.01. p <.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8. respectively. t(253)= 35.01and to injury occurrence. p <.01.977. 178 .982. p <. and t(253)= 37.946. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01.567. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.016.01. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 11. p <. t(253)= 8.737.01. p <.881.
While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Elander et. In an earlier study. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Evans.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. They found gender. al. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. 2.1). freeway urgency. Often. Elander et al. 1993. 2002b). multi-factorial perspective. 1995. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.4. including gender.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.2. upon examination. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 1991). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. (1993).. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 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. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.
BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. 1991). for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. if different. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. the proximal variable. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. hopelessness. In the present research.total BIT score and component scores. In other words. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. As a result. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. though. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. In the contextual mediated model. Further. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. is that factors interact with each other. All too often. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. 180 . the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. But findings were more complex than that. BIT. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. except with taxicab drivers. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 188.8.131.52). 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
01years.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. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=11.25 years. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. and 36. as well. 20. SD=. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Inclán. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.1 months. In the present study. SD=131. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.1. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.7 months. respectively).63. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Of course. respectively). there are other possible influences. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. SD=1. By virtue of their age and occupation. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.53. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . 5. SD=22. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. Because of occupational demands.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.3.16. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.2 years. SD=1. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.hierarchy.6 months as licensed drivers. For taxicab drivers. They were also more experienced (266.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. For taxicab drivers. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones.5.
it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. 2003. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. influence peddling and status-related privileges. The finding that Indian- 188 . Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. were necessary to succeed. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Devashayam.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). In an environment where career choice. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. corrupt practices. when compared to Canadian students. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. 2005). in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Carment (1974) also found. rife with bureaucracy. perhaps due as argued earlier. however. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. along with selfpromotion skills. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. financial matters and social affiliations are made. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. spousal selection. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control.
Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 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. an internal locus of control. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1998. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1981). than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. by extension. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. as a group. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. where Cheung et al. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Indeed. 5. Again. 1966.5% annually from 9. Sendut.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. Gomez. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 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. Salih &Young. as a result. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . including locus of control. Nandy. but two possible influences stand out.5 million in 1991 to 11. 1999.7 in 1996. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 1999).8 million in 1996. and. 1999. 2002.3. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India.
2001. Dukes. 318). among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Huff. Oetting & Salvatore. bringing them closer together in outlook. Nonetheless. 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. by the enraged driver. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Lawton & Nutter. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . 2001) In the present research. Consistently. Clayton. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 2008. Lynch. 2002). Parkinson. more recently. 2003. Jenkins. Miles & Johnson. King & Parker. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations.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. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 5. 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. Miller & Rodgers. 2000. feeling more frustrated at external sources. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic.women’s friendship patterns.
there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. during such incidents.conditions. Underwood et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. Parker. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Further. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. 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”). Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. on a journey by journey basis. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Finland and the Netherlands. 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. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. physical aggression. Petrilli et al. Underwood et al. Oetting et al. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. Deffenbacher. With taxicab drivers. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic.
as well. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. Such responses. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). 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. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. That is. 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 . 2006). The effects of aggression on behaviour. 1997).. the world and others).. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour.strongly. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. 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. in the samples studied here. however. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. although still significantly. but not when they involved the derogation of others. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. In essence.
401). Hochschild. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. 2004. Meichenbaum. “in ergonomics. (2003). This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. 193 . and also by attributions regarding locus of control. It is moderated by cognitive processes.e. Language loaded with emotional content. p. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 1987. or self-talk. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. Generally. 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. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. Certainly. Downe & Loke. 1995.. and particularly with negative emotion. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). but there may be more to it than that. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i.. Novaco. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. 1994. 1979. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. like any other mental task. 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. Finally. 1990. 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.are determined by chance or fate.e. 1977). A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Similarly. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. true to operant learning principles.
2004. Stein. Carretie. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 1993). Making sense of. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 1999. aggressive emotionality.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. 2000. 2002. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. 1996. and attempting to exercise control over. In fact. Watson & Wan. Hinojosa. Trabasso & Liwag. MartinLoeches.Robbins. 162). Mercado & Tapia. Dien.5. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 2005). Taylor & Fragopanagos. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. Martin. 2002. Tomkins. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 5. hostile automatic thoughts. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Lambie & Marcel. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. 2000. Performance (e. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . p. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. 1997).g.
or independent variables. or latent. First. Second.. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 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. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. 2006). 1998). who in 1970.. including dependent and independent variables. 2004. Gavin and Hartman (2004). When composing a model. In addition. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. 2006). and perhaps most important. 2006). Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. Karl Jöreskog. involved in the analysis. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. 2000). The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. Finally. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. or dependent. factors represented by multiple variables. a multivariate technique. Hair et al. explain criterion. EQS and AMOS. By estimating and removing measurement error. Structural equation modelling (SEM). 195 .434). variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. According to Williams. p.. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. 2004. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem.
(2004) noted that. (2006).5.e. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Sümer (2003) added that. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. 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. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Therefore. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. GFI. and the root mean square residual were included. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. fit indices such as chi-square statistics.e. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. SRMR. Ketchen. in that they have failed to compare or re-specify the proposed model with an alternative model to test a variety of different theoretical propositions. etc) 196 . Shook et al. In the present research. Shook.5. the comparative fit index (CFI). when assessing the fits of measurement models. (2004) has been critical of most studies. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. as suggested by Hair et al. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Hair et al. TLI. CFI. Williams et al. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.
1998. we would argue.. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. CFI and CFI) greater than .. RMSEA lower than . 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. Structural equation modelling should. 2000)..5. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2006. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 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. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Sambasivan & Ismail.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 2001. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.g. 2001. CFI. It is argued here that. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Fit index values (e. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2006). Md-Sidin. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.90. 1998). It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Hair et al. significant p-values can be expected.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. As a general rule.In the present research. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Maruyama. 5. GFI. At the same time.
when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. stating that. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. as suggested by Byrne (2001). Thus. destination-activity orientation.soundness. There is some support for this position in the literature. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.10) excluded the fourth factor. 158). More importantly. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. 88).3). assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In the case at hand. However. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. and practical considerations (p. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.1. In some cases. two structural equation models. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. statistical. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. “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. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.7.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. 4. 1C5 and 1C6.
96 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. P.02 0.02 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.96 1.045 0.99 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.91 0.97 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.94 0.043 129. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. F2. Injury Occurrence 35.02 0.97 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.97 1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.48 30.42 11.Table 5.034 97.060 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. 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. 199 . AQ. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0. C. P.499 0. C.909 0.98 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. AQ. F2.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.
the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact.48. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1990. while for Model 1C6. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller.1). it is 0. 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.. However. 1996). in particular. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. in this analysis. goodness-of-fit. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. they should be dropped. Parker. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.42. Schwebel. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. 1995. Nahn & Shapiro. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Manstead & Stradling. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. but still acceptable. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. et al. By selecting Model 1C5. For practical reasons. Hair et al. Storey.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. Kayumov. 2006. farther along. based on the notion that each variable included may. 2006). 200 . Sambasivan (2008) stated that. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Reason. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.
for automobile drivers sampled. Evans. via BIT. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .28 respectively).28 and .35 and . 2003).g. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. Sümer. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. on crash outcomes. Rothengatter.6.5. 2001. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. . with five distal factors (internality.29). Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. 1991.21). the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4.4. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. externality-powerful other. externality-chance. 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.14. . In Study 1C.35.1 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. freeway urgency.66). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .34) and injury occurrence (r = . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . crash occurrence (r = -.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. The results suggested that the alternative model.45). aggression.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.26.5. externality-powerful other. and hostile automatic thoughts).5. externally-focused frustration. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. . externalitychance. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.1).
55). had a better fit than other alternative models. which sampled motorcyclists. on the other hand. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.25). Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. freeway urgency. freeway urgency. 5. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. crash occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. 202 .66) directly predicted crash outcomes. 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.4.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.20) and injury occurrence (r = . One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . crash occurrence (r = .41). externally-focused frustration.24). The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.23) and injury occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.5.65 and . externality-chance. Aggression.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Results indicated that the first alternative model.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.
via BIT. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. as a result. 5. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.4. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. freeway urgency.5. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. for crash outcomes. hopelessness. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.5.3). to measure outcome. their crash occurrence. externality-chance. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. However. such as internality. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. Results indicated that the third alternative model. aggression). crash occurrence.20 and . Finally.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. 203 . with the sample of taxicab drivers. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. had no significant effect on BIT scores. Distal factors.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. For motorcyclists. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other and aggression). 4.5.6. with four distal factors (internality. in turn and indirectly. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. externality-powerful other. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. for the sample of taxicab drivers. had a better fit than alternative models. crash occurrence. externality-chance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts.
Huguenin. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. To a large extent. 204 .6 5. a total of five samples were taken. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar.6. Sekaran (2003) points out. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 2004). chosen at random from taxi stands. 278279). 2005. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. 2005). 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. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. 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. however. In the present research. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.5.
to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. in Malaysia. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Table 5. Sabah. 205 .2%). Study 1B: 100%. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.6%.6% (Study 1A: 99. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. as elsewhere. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state. with a mean age of 20. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. 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. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Selangor. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.2).13 years (SD = 1. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Since.2% and Study 2: 99. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.In Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. The most populous state.55). Study 1C: 99.31.
887. In both cases.Table 5. 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.7 (14) But.818. Table 5.6 6.0 8.6 (10) 7.2: 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) 7.200. 206 .150.2 (13) 11.300.3 (12) 11.2 (5) 0. Not all states have the same number of drivers. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.5 (8) 3.387. in this case.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.6 0.4 5.674 1.500 1.2 11.576 2.000 1.6 5. Table 5.9 9.2 (1) 3.004.396.500.000 2.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.2 7.880 3. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.9 (9) 7.2 3.000 1.000 3.000 Per cent of national population 26.188 1. For that reason.000 215.503.8 6.6 2.7 (2) 2. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.0 4.9 (3) 2.5 (4) 4.2 (11) 12.260.1 (7) 8.286 1.8 (6) 6.000 2.0 12.807 733.100. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.
496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.600 135.63 207 .22 17.026 10.496 187.163 10.251 324.24 0.104 6.170 13.46 8.88 2.467 25.93 9.920 181.768 6.55 7.4 4.88 3.19 7.98 0.Table 5.212 39.45 9.36 8.725 70.064 9.89 3.19 3.13 6.96 3.37 3.43 2.137 698.85 1.90 5.70 12.774 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 12.041 92.428.20 12.003 10.230 266.606 24.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.50 29.68 7.735 165.92 25.35 4.785 393.34 11.70 3.16 2.75 4.28 3.84 11.76 3.91 2.34 3.198 156.588.19 4.635 1.144 12.27 14.617 10.093 5.490 525.97 12.05 2.24 2.029 273.93 0.561 1.
679 90.02 10.722 255.029 273.93 7.133 705.63 13.617 10.43 2.144 12.76 3.22 3.992 776.92 25.288 444.74 208 .Table 5.48 1.725 70.20 15.28 3.561 1.93 9.283 770.170 13.46 5.656 821.02 7.45 2.112 347.606 24.37 3.856 310.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.35 4.46 14.33 4.75 5.4 4.64 2.03 4.38 0.615.49 12.66 11.104 6.958 % 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 12.003 10.27 14.88 2.88 3.49 0.727 161.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.64 1.989 6.36 8.15 5.79 13.59 12.467 25.995 233.026 10.63 11.10 9.221 36.064 9.768 6.82 9.59 1.305 276.98 0.212 39.38 4.14 7.
Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. At least on these dimensions.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . it can be argued that they were.Table 5.3 and 5. it is possible to say that sampling.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.4. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Table 5.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . at least.824** . participants came from – or. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . Of course. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. 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. was representative of a high risk driver population.903** .814** 1 .
We can also get rough data of exposure by age. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. 1998. However.. Again. Exposure. as in other psychological research. however. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). 296). 2001). Elander et al. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. None of these variables can be substituted by group means.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. unless the variation within the group is very small. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. 1979). Keskinen. violations and accidents should be linked together. Rothengatter. accident distributions by age. in studying driving behaviour.6. 1998. 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. 5. Much important data is available in official statistics. accidents. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . attitudinal factors. e. Hatakka. demographic factors. The problem.g. the data has to be disaggregated.
blood pressure. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. 5. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. combined interview and observational methods. as in a study reported by Chalmé. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. in studies of driving behaviour. the more information is lost through memory lapses. though.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. 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.g. In the present research. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. Particularly.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. 211 . 13). for instance.. the longer the time period for data collection. The assumption. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.g. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. muscle tension. 1996). errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. as well. 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. In future studies..6. Visser and Denis (2004). Yet. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. therefore. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes.
Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. as well. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1971).4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. Second. and the hypothesis (H2. First. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 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. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 1999). Mercer. individual standard. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective.In the present research. Unfortunately.6.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. 5. 1997. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 2002).
Often. In much the same way.. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 213 . on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 2003. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. in other words. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. 121). p. 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. Kahneman. 1974). it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 1982). Specifically. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. Slovic & Tversky. eventful or recent. 1973. 181). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 2002). 2008). 2004).frequency that were used in this research. although this has not been firmly established. because they have taken place recently. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. frequency or distribution in the world (p. but because they are inherently easier to think about. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 2003). 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. Wood & Boyd. But. but not always. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 1993. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 1993).
where driving histories generally include lengthy. during periods of low traffic volume. auditing the accuracy of drivermaintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be beyond the capability and scope of the present research. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. on one hand. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. 2000). traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. 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. road conditions. for example. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research.. Finally. Similarly. Of course. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . (2003).In the Malaysian environment. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. Deffenbacher et al. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. 1991). but training participants in standardised record-keeping. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. 2001) . asked participants to record the time of day. in their studies of roadway aggression. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. Sansone.
. 5. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. 2004). 1994). 1997). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. Summala. Good theories are simple. have high information content.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. In the present research. Further research is required.7 5. selfreported measure used here. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 1985. To summarise. during the study design process. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. are testable and contain no contradictions.studies undertaken. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective.g. 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. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. over-arching theory (Rothengatter.7. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Michon. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. Ranney. 2005). 2004). 1991). 2005). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 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. It was felt. In addition. 2002. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 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. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King.
and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. in particular to structure data. 32). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. 294). check facts. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 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”. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. on the other hand. 94). if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . if they are modest in ambition. or represent processes. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. at times. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. often in graphical form (Grayson. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. The answer is probably not. 1997. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Hauer (1987).patterns of relationships. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. Grayson (1997) agreed. The answer to this question is possibly yes. p. stating that.
304). but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. and if they are resultscentred (pp. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). hopelessness. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 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. 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. for instance. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. In the present research. 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. who argued that. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 95-96). 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. Yet. In 217 . it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 2. In this case.3). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries.
as defined by Grayson (1997). together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. According to Ranney (1994). 2. 2005) were included as distal variables. not on everyday driving. 2003). conscientiousness. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.3. psychoticism. sensation seeking (Sümer. extraversion. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. The contextual mediated framework. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.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). it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.4). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.7. With several exceptions. openness. anxiety.. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. much current research. for instance. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. While the present research 218 .other studies. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. Kerlinger (2000) and others. crash-free driving. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. while still very much a model and not a theory. 5. depression.
relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. 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. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. Conversely. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. They argued that locus of control. As a result. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. 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. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. Within their proposed conceptual framework. On the other hand. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. 219 . Following this reasoning. no matter how reliable a safety device. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. or at least to react more slowly. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.did not test any of those theories specifically.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. 1996). Christ et al. 1997. task capability (Fuller. Typically. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Specifically. external locus of control and hostile attributions. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 220 . Summala. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. once identified. though. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 2004). 1982). Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. scarce resources for screening drivers. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.In the present research.3 Driver Selection. al. 5.. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 2002. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Gidron & Davidson. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. 2005. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. 1996). could be screened out.7.
This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. 1957.5. World Health Organisation. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1957).7. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.7. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.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 2.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.4. or legal intervention. 1). Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. At the same time. Unlike 100 years ago.4. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. teams of humans. and machines are highly intricate (p. for the last fifty years. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 5. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). education. 1961.4). Slinn.
as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. (Bishop. Maggio & Jin. At the same time. or the adaptive automation concept. 2001). 2005).application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. roadway and environmental settings (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. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Suda & Ono. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler.6). there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. 222 . not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes.6). with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. 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. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. Stough. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. depending on environmental factors. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2001). Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Murazami. for instance. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). These have been applied to in-car. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Sadano. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. In the case of LKA. 2003).
6). Richardson & Downe. 1998). Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. 1999. 2000). Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 1997).with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. 2004. changes in traffic speed. Brown & Noy. 2003. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. in particular to pursue environmental. was associated crash outcomes. Herzog. 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. Black. traffic 223 . Fountaine and Knotts. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Tassinary. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. The present research also found that freeway urgency. Ulrich. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 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. 1993. Parsons. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE).
ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. journey purpose or other human factors. 1996. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. 309). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. inexperienced drivers. questions of alternative urban structure. 1992). Proctor. p. Dietze. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. however. however. 1991). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 1996. Probably. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. and whether this information varies according to the situation. 224 .efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers.
unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. lane road conditions. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. 225 . blind spot sensing and lange change assist. keeping. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas.1. infrastructure.Table 5. “rumble strips” in expressways. and likelihood of. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. transitions for. 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. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. 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. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). departure warning. Hi H 1. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. etc. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.
to in-vehicle display terminals.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. 226 . a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. point. generally pilot”. H 1.. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. 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”. including those in adjoining lanes. traffic lights) safe. ACC systems provide modifications.(continued) H 1. the host vehicle. are travelling. 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. the systems intersection modification. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.1. Radar. than the safety standard. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures.1.
at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.3 vertical displacement. “Speed tables”.1. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. 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. environment and other frustrating stimuli. 227 . pinchpoints and gateways or arches.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. signs with calming or vehicles. H 1. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. Such devices include chicanes. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.
(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.1. at least. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. H 1. weather-related road conditions. 228 . driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. This information allows drivers to avoid or. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. safety messages. notification of construction ahead. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. It suggests that. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. The present research suggests that. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. 229 . publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam.5. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. however. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. 2001).4. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. 73). to some extent. teachers or the police. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus.7. to inadequacies in driver training and testing.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. like community centres or places of worship.
7. 2007. First. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. They also stated. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. Second. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. from the findings of the present research. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. p. p. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. legal measures change least often. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. that “Of these three approaches. 1978. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. N6). This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. such as visibility of enforcement. 265). however.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. 1030). 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.5. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.4. was studied in a 230 . The bias of false consensus. 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. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective.
is allowed to occur in a Just World. Parker. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Ajzen.sample of drivers by Manstead.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). Azjen & Fishbein. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 2001. 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). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. after all. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 1992). Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . on the other. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Reason & Baxter. Stradling. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. By doing so. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 498). 1991.
Similarly. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. or not adhere.drivers’ decisions to adhere. to traffic regulations. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. 232 . it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
as proximal to the crash outcomes. In the present research. Iverson & Rundmo.. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. 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. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 2005. ethnicity. locus of control. 233 . Sümer. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. gender. In doing so.. when risky. Wállen Warner & Åberg. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. Results have indicated that. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern.g. as expected. Sümer et al. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. it was concluded that driver experience. 2003. hopelessness. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. age. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. A contextual mediated model. 2002.
it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde.In the current literature. 2003). while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. 1973). However. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule.g. like Brown and Noy (2004). Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . Further. it is argued here. In most cases. task capability (Fuller. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Harrell. 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. 1974). In the present research. 1986. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and.. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. the best fit usually implies the best model. Hoyt. 1995. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. and accident risk (e. 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. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. 1982). Montag & Comrey. as well as statistical grounds. This is Of the variables studied.. 1987). Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. 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.
all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. as well. 1998. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. Several authors (e. they 235 . it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. cultural anthropology. 2005. 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. For example. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. However. Rothengatter.aggression were observed. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. in combination. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. Huguenin. road engineering and ergonomics. Groeger & Rothengatter.. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.g. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. a multi-disciplinary approach was used.
Through a multi-disciplinary approach. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). Indeed. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. injuries and death. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. 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. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. management. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. In the present research. 236 . 313). 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. educational and enforcement spheres.
Mohd Nasir. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Crash data analysis: collective vs.. (2002). Psychological Testing and Assessment. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences.E. M.  Ahmad Hariza. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. A.  Adolphs. 5. (2002).. Mohd Zulkifli. MY: Pearson. P. and Kulanthayan.  af Wählberg. (2003). L.R. (1993). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Puzzles & Irritations. 1867-1874.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.  Abdul Kareem. A. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Petaling Jaya. S. individual crash level approach. Musa.S.H. M.H. L.  Aiken.. (2003). E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). 289-296. and Anurag. (2007). (2003). 237 . 35. 38(5). and Law. 25. (1979).B. 12. 10(2). P. R.  Abdul Rahman. A. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. T. 473-486. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.E. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. Third edition. Bahrain. and Pederson.T. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. 31-39. (2005). Radin Umar.  Åberg. H. H. A.. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 581-587. N. Subramaniam. R.  af Wählberg. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.  Abdullah.A. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Drinking and driving: intention. Journal of Safety Research. 169-177. K. (1999)..
G. 10(6).  Arthur. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.. 187-195. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. (Eds. Aggressive Behavior.  Amin. Human Factors. Personality. (1991). J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. and Fishbein. Biometrics. In Kuhl. Tubré.D. 27-58. 10.) European Review of Social Psychology. 179-211. Age.  Archer.T. (2001). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior.H. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. J. (2005).  Ajzen. 22(3). and Kerrich. (2003). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. (1997).A. M. T.  Åkerstedt. 303-313.105-110. (1952).J. 238 . 7. Learning. gender and early morning accidents. M. and Beckmann. S. W. A. M. C.  Ajzen. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. and Hewston. 33(3). Edwards. Bell. London: John Wiley & Sons. (2001). I... S.  Armstrong.  Ajzen.J.  Arbous. 404-415. 340-342. Nature and operation of attitudes. (Eds. and Christian. W. Women’s Studies International Forum. J. J. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. Ajzen. T.E. 50(2). Current Psychology: Developmental. 23. I. Social.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. (1987). Day. and Haigh. I. I.  Armitage. (1985).C. and Kecklund (2001). 52. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. In Stroebe. E. 623-633. A. 291-307. 47. B. A. (2004). and Tubré. Journal of Sleep Research. Annual Review of Psychology. J. The theory of planned behaviour.
P. Manila: Philippines. (2002).  Bakri Musa. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. (1991). Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. F.  Aylott.A.A.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 51(6).M. B. R. Barrett. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. (Eds. (1998). When hope becomes hopelessness. P.V.M.-E.  Aschenbrenner.bakrimusa.  Baron. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Dischinger. J. G. W. and Carson. Boston: Kluwer. 279-284.  Barjonet.S. 34.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. M.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. October 18). P-E. In Rothengatter.  Asian Development Bank (2005). 2007 from http://www. strategic and statistical considerations. and Tortosa. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). 231-234. F. and Kenny.31-42. R. NL: Styx. and Tortosa. 1173-1182. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.D. K. In Barjonet. P. and Alexander. (1997).  Austin. 2(4).F. (1994). Continuing carnage on our carriageways. 21-30). GJ. and Biehl. 14-29). (2002). Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.  Barjonet. M.-E. (1986). Arthur.  Ballesteros. T. R. Retrieved April 4. S.. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. 34.M. and Carbonell Vaya E. Human Performance. 4(2). D. (2005.. 239 .. (Ed. Wilde. (Eds. 89-105. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (2001). In Trimpop.L. Groningen. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.
234(11). Cognitive models of depression. D.T. (1993). New York: Brunner/Mazel. and Berg.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Cognitive therapy.T. 218-229). The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. R. (1987a). D. (1987b).  Beck. 73-84. 29(1).  Beck. J. In Zeig. J. (1974).C. A.C. Psychological Bulletin. G.T. R.  Benzein. H. A.S.E.  Beck.. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Beck. 19. Weissman.  Bentler. (Ed. and Simons-Morton (2002).G. (pp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.F. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.  Beck. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Health Education and Behavior. 42  Becker.T.. and Loftus. 1(1). A. The level of and relation between hope. New York: Meridian. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.F. In Rubin. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale.A. A. Theory: the necessary evil. A. 240 . and Steer. A. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.. Beck. (Ed. (1993). and Trexler. Journal of the American Medical Association. (1980). New York: Perennial Harper Collins. Kovacs.J. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (1975). E. (Eds. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.T. A. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. M. In (Flinders. and Mills.. A. (2005).T. and Bonnett.. E.  Belli. K. Palliative Medicine. D. A. Lester. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 149-178). (1976).G. 88.T.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. 5-37. New York: Teachers College Press.  Beck. 588-606. (1996). L.M. P.K. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. 157-179).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. A. 234-240.H.  Beck. Hostility and Violence. (1999). and Weissman. 1146-1149. D. Hartos.
(2006). March 12).  Bridger.  Bina.C. S. Malaysian National News Agency. K. J. McKee. and Haney. Journal of Personality Assessment. 37. (2006. R. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. New York: McGraw Hill. F. T.  Blumenthal. 313-322. 391-399.. 472-481  Binzer. Applied Ergonomics. S. and Bonino. A. Graziano. Introduction to Ergonomics. T. 45(1). 132(5).. 751-777. B. 39-55. (2001).J. M.. (1994).com. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Managing the high costs of road deaths. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Stress and Coping. Anxiety. 34(1).E. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. New York: Routledge. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.  Blasco.D. R. (2002). Retrieved March 30. 241 . 44-51. E.A.A. 2007 from http://www. 43.my/bernama/v3/printable.. 38(3). (1981). Applied Psychology: An International Review.  Boff. D. 95-104. and Geller. 15(1). Accident analysis and Prevention. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. Applying Psychology in Organizations.  Blacker. 37-40. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.S. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. J. H. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Williams.bernama. (1984).  Bettencourt. Talley.php?id=185148.. A. Ben-Zur. Benjamin. Psychological Bulletin.  Boyce. and Shimmin. 53.S. M.  Bernama. and Valentine. R. (2006).B. Psychology and road safety. F. (1995).
Political Geography. 18(2). 20-23.  Brown.M.S. R. I.C.C. 24(1).C. 242 . I. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.G.  Browne. E. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Brown. and Cudeck. In Rothengatter. and Ghiselli. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.W. Personality and Individual Differences. 4(4).  Bunnell.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Warren. R. 32(1). I.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.D..D. 24. R. (1995). (1948). 27(3). International Journal of Educational Development. (2004). (Eds. Ergonomics. 219-241.K. (1997). (2005). The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. W.  Brown.E.W. Amsterdam: Pergamon.  Brown. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. (1992).E.P. C. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. 318-330. T.. N. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. observational data and driver records. Schlundt. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. G. (1989). C. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. 14. 21. Levine. D. 9-19). 345-352. R. and Noy. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. P.  Brindle. 445-455. (1982). (2000). Briggs. W. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. 105-124. E. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Wilde. (2002). 29-38  Brodsky. Haliburton.. T. and Huguenin.  Brown. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Goldzweig.  Burns. T. I. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 267-278. (Eds.J. and Carbonell Vaya. In Rothengatter. (2007). 641-649.S. 37(4).D. R.
G.L. O.A. 9. In Bohrnstedt. and Cortes. Applications and Programming. J. Applications and Programming. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. L. J. A. (2004).  Byrne... E. 63-65. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. 45-50.. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Environment and Behaviour.  Carretie.W.  Byrd. 35(6). Martin-Loeches. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. B. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.  Buss. 15981613.H. J. F. and Nasar. International Journal of Psychology.. (Eds). M. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. A.H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 243 . (2004). PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. 65-115).J.  Caird. R. Buss. D. (2003). Journal of Consulting Psychology.D. M.M. Parada. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.A. Human Brain Mapping.  Byrne.  Carmines. (1974).P. 736-751. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.. J. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Mercado. Hinojosa. Cohn. T. (2002). Multiple perspectives. B.  Cackowski. (Eds. and McIver. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1957). (1981). L. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. 47(15). (2001). E. (1998).  Carment. (1999). 21. (2000). and Durkee. and Kline.F. 31. & Santos. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 290-299.W. M. W. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. G.  Carsten. 343-349. J. Gonzalez. In Fuller.L. and Borgatta.K.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. E. T. M. and Tapia. A. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Ergonomics.. 22. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL.. and Warren. J.
(2007).M.H. N6. Visser.ictct. Sunway Campus.G. and Nash. Retrieved October 15. and Denis. H. Monash University. November). Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 557-562. R. Personality and Individual Difference. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J. Taiwan. W. New York: Dell. Y. 467-477. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. (2000).. 21(4). R. D. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Driving: through the eyes of teens. 10(2). gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005).D.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Dictionary of Psychology.pdf 244 . Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). and Huguenin. Brazil.. R. and Yeh.  Chalmé.P. R. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.  Chang. In Rothengatter.ghipr. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. What are we allowed to ask. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. 2008 from http://www. (2006). Kuala Lumpur. S. P. (2007. March 20-22. M.W. S.  Cheung. The Star. (1985). T.F. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. and Lim. Campo Grande. Carver.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Retrieved March 31.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Cheung.  Cheah. 2007 from http:www.-H. Howard.0. November 12). J. F.. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. 41.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.-L. Malaysia. 109-122. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences.  Chaplin. 61-71). (1996).-H. (2004). Matto Grosso do Sul. T. (Eds.
33. N.S. French. Bartle. Retrieved December 7.D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Journal of Safety Research. M. V.K..M. J. A. Bakou. June). P. 196-203. (2007).. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. 38(6). Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. P. 39. Lamsudin. Towner. (2000)..P. T... E. Time vs. N. (2002). A. 255-274). Safety at work.. and Huguenin. In Rothengatter. Ward. Personality traits and the development of depression..  Clarke. 1283-1289. 28(2). C. Cancer Nursing. Panosch. Demakakos. Smiley. Y. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Tzamalouka. H. London: Wiley-Blackwell. S. 2007 from http://www. Bradshaw.D.. (2004).pdf  Conrad. E. 431-443. (Ed. P. 22(3). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. (1992). Personality and Individual Differences.G.makeroadssafe..T.. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. G..  Chipman. 125-129. and Lee-Gosselin. In Chmiel. C. T. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. MacGregor. C. and Bukasa. M.L.  Christ. 974-981. (2005). and Ward. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 13(2).’ Injury Prevention.. (Eds. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.  Chliaoutaks... C. (1996). Koumaki.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Cairns. )2007). 193-200. B. and Darviri. R. and Stiles.  Chmiel. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.E. W. hopelessness and suicide ideation.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. 679-684.. 24(2). N. D. 377-390).  Chung.  Christie.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Chioqueta. (1999). and Chan. R. M. N. Kasniyah. 245 . S. and Costello.C. Helmets. and Truman.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
F. and Froggatt. 246 . P.M.  de Waard. American Psychologist. Retrieved April 5. and Patel. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. 64.W. (2005).  Davies. K. F.  Davin Arul (2005.M.L. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). R. R. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. L. 16(5).  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Cozan. 263. Cooke. and van Koppen. (1961). N48  de Raedt. (1962). 161-175). Accident proneness.my/permalink. 20(5). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. The Star. and McRae. (Eds. (1991). (1996). D. D.  Crittendon. W. 10. 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. 2007 from http://blog. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. 21-50. R.. and Huguenin.A. W. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.thestar. and Santos. P. T.  Cresswell. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. and Durso. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.T.D. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. 10. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. In Fuller. Journal of Personality Assessment. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Wagenaar.asp?id-7003.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.J. October 18).  Crombag. H. (1995). 98-117. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. R. p. Amsterdam: Elsevier.R. (2006.J. N.com. P.A. February 8). Mental workload. 5(1). (2002).S.  Costa. 45-62. 95-104. J. 152-171. G.
The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.L.T. Lynch. and Carbonell Vaya. J.L. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. E.L. (2004). (2000). 123132.F. In Dewar. and Brookhuis. T. 111-142). R. Ergonomics. (1997). Journal of Counseling Psychology.D. 27(4). Richards. M. and Olson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.  Dharmaratne. 50(2). Women’s Studies International Forum.. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. E. E. J.N. and Morris. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Age differences – drivers old and young. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. Oetting. and Oetting.  Dewar.D. (Eds.  Deffenbacher. 161-171). C. R. Lynch. (2005). P.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. On the measurement of driver mental workload. 41.. Huff. L. (2002b). J. T. K.  Deffenbacher.L. 5-17. R. R.E. (2003). J.. N. Tucson. E. Personality and Individual Differences. (1996). 333-356. E. Filetti. R.  Devashayam. P. (Eds.. 47.W. and Meyer.L. T. 26(1). E. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.R. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.  Deffenbacher. 209-233). and Olson. and Swaim. 34.A. R.S.S.E. P.B.  Dien..S.R.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Lynch. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. R. R. 729-730. 383-402. In Rothengatter. Lynch. 575-590. 14(12). (1998). Individual differences.  Delhomme. T. The expression of anger and its consequences. 28.  Deffenbacher. (Eds.L. Journal of Counseling Psychology. de Waard.E. and Salvatore. 1-20. J.C.. Tucson.  Dewar.R. In Dewar.. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. 247 . R.R. D.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. (2002a). S. Cognitive Therapy and Research. S. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Petrilli. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 373-393...S. E. Oetting. (1999). Oetting. and Ameratunga. (2003).L.
Kedah.R. A. S. J. S. M. 31. 85-92). 33. M. Clayton. Dietze. R. L. E. Brown. 53.L. T. In Dorn.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. November).  Draskóczy. J. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA).  Downe. 14(2).a. 1146-1158. Lim. Social Science Journal 38. 323-331. Amsterdam: Pergamon. S. (2007. Mohd Yusuff. M. (1999). N.. In Khalid. Knowledge transfer.. M. A. Sungai Petani.. (2003). and Coie.S. 278-285). 223-231). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. December). L.E. Miller. and Che Doi. T. Ebersbach. (1987). Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.P. and Carbonell Vaya. In Rothengatter. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.  Dixey. 525-535..T.A. (Eds..Y. W. 197208.  Dobson. H. (Eds.  Downe. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.E. Women drivers’ behaviour. R. Science & Technology.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. and Loke. (2001).A. 248 . Asian Institute of Medicine. and McFadden. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Dukes. Powers.G. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. T. and Ballard. J. Bahar. M. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups.. C. (2003). negative emotional and risky driving.G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. Malaysia. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Jenkins. (2004.. Health Education Research.L. R.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.. C. and Mayser.  Dula. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.L. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. (Ed.  Dodge.. Lippold. ‘Fatalism’. (1997). (1999).M.D. K. Nigeria. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. 263282. Ball. A.. C. D. and Rodgers.
69. G. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior..(Ed.R.  Ellis.B. 22(4).  Engel. A. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. (1993).L. 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. A. (1968). March 20-22. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. A. J. (2005). (1996). Lalovic. Journal of Transport Geography. J.  Dunbar. 113.L. (2002). A. 4(3). and French D. C. 17-26). Ménard-Buteau. J. R. (1962). Causal ordering of stress.  Edwards. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. C.  Elangovan. 771-782. Retrieved December 25. 838-844. (1984). G. 293-300. Leadership and Organizational Development... Lesage. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. G.M. Annals of Internal Medicine.  Elvik. R. New York: Academic.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik.ictct. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.. Chawky.. (Ed. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men... 279-294. 2007 from www.D. Boyer. Psychological Bulletin. (2001).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. In Lefcourt. Brno. Annals of Internal Medicine. (1971). New York: Lyle Stuart Press..) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. and Turecki. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Czech Republic. 159165.pdf  Engel. A. In Underwood. Dumais. 249 . G.. satisfaction and commitment. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. N. 50(13). 201-22. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. West. R. G. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. (2005). 209-306). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.  Elander. Kim.A. H. 74.
London: Medical Research Council.  Farmer.G. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. G. and Chambers. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. J. 421-435. New York: McGraw Hill. 16. and Popovich. E. 19-36. B. (1991). London: Medical Research Council.J.. and Chambers. Traffic Safety and the Driver. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6.. 86(6). (1926).. W. and Alpert. Herth. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.6bil losses yearly. 6(1). L. The Star.  Ey. S.  Farmer. (1984). E. 784-786.S. (2000). 250 . L. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. L. (1939).  Farran. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. M. p.A.M.  Evans.  Farmer. E. American Journal of Public Health. 23(5). Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. Risk Analysis. S.  Ferguson. Patterson. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. (1996). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.000 and RM5. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.M. K. London: Medical Research Council. L. 81-94.G. C. 55). (1929). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. (1995). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.  Evans. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. (1976).A.. L.. E. Barnard.G. December 10). E. 38).  Evans. 84).M. N22. E. Klesges. (1986). and Chambers. Evans. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Hadley.
 Firestone.  Frazier. 289-298. Women and traffic accidents. Belief. In Fuller. and McCartt.  Friedman. Malays and Indians compared. 51(1). 412-426. 66. 461-472. Journal of Safety Research 38. 251 . New York: Knopf. 207-213.E.  Fuller.H. R. M.. and Seiden. P. 137-145. (2006).18(4). 77-97). The task-capability interface model of the driving process. B. 37. and Järmark. (2005). Ferguson. San Francisco. consequences and considerations. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. (1975).. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Teoh. causes. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. R. R. Tix. M. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 115-134. A. K. R. 12(4). A. S. Journal of American College Health.  Finn. H. and Richardson. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. and Barron. E. (2007). Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Intention and Behavior. and Bragg.  Forward. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. (2005). Human factors and driving.  Fuller.W.R. 38(5). and Ajzen. (1986). I. and Rosenman.P. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. (1998.  Fuller. S. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Attitude. (1990). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. S. R. Cross Cultural Management. (1974). Linderholm. S.. and Santos. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Recherche Transports Sécurité. August). Accident analysis and Prevention.  Fishbein. R.A.W. J. I. S.  Forward. (2000)..A. 63-77. 9. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.A. (2004).T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. 47-55.  Fontaine. R.
. 33(6). and Mahbob. (Eds. (2006). A.C. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Rajasingham-Senanayake. E. (1999). (1977).  Gomez. C. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior.. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. Stress and Coronary Disease. 487-491. Journal of Applied Psychology. Aggressive Driver. (2008).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. D.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. T.  Galovski. 109-128..  Garg. and Gomez. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Nandy. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.. (1949).S. A.B. (2003). E. Mutu. A. Y. 167-202). E. 13-21.D. Hillsdale. D. 6. G.T. 93-96).W. E. (1997). Petaling Jaya. (1996).A. and Carbonell Vaya. S. Y.E. R. J. 203-220. and Davidson.T. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers.B. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. and Pender. 252 .  Gidron. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. Ergonomics. (2006).. Fuller. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. E.  Ghazali. Behavior Paterns. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. and Blanchard. Gal. (2006). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 58(1).S.E.A. 19. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. H. 540-546.  Graham. and Brown. In Rothengatter. McHugh. MY: Sage. E.  Ghiselli. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Eds.. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. European Journal of Public Health. 109-116. R. 16(5). L. C. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. R. and Hyder. 12(4).  Glass. N.  Grayson. N. 1233-1248. (1999).  Gidron. and Syna Desevilya. K. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. Malta. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 42(9).
 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.
 LeShan. (1983). 41. and Stiller. and Nutter. 37. 97.. (2002). (Ed. Conner.M. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Moscati. D.A. H. Journal of Social Psychology. Billittier. Dutton. (1976). Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.M. Cancer as a turning point. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.. Mahwah.  Levenson. W.  Levenson. and Morgan.. IV. 479-490.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.407-423. H. Jehle. 3. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 177-196. (2005). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. H. New York: E.J.M. pp. C. In Lefcourt.M. Applied Ergonomics. G. 2nd Edition. H. D. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers.  Levenson. Malay dominance and opposition politics.M.V. A. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. Barrett. L. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. 93.G. British journal of Psychology. H. 253-269). Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). H.  Lenior. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. (1975).K. (1974). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.. R.P. 38. 262 . 377-383. 303-304.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (1973). 397-401. 659-662.  Lee.B. (2001).L. R. Journal of Personality Assessment.  Lefcourt. E. (1989). Lawton. (2002).  Lerner.  Lefcourt. A. Janssen. H.. K. G.  Leech. New York: Academic. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. N.
Accident Analysis and Prevention. 11. (1997). D. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. The Star Online. Neighbors.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. and Scodel. and Yen. 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..P. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.my/news/story. H-F. Wu. 39(3). (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. March 26). H. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Psychological Reports. L-L. Retrieved April 5. and Donovan. (2007. Huang. 59-67. S. 7. 15-63). H. I.htm. 10.P. J.M. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. (1979). New York: Academic..com.  Lonero. R. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. F. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.  Lonczak. Differentiating among internality. 263 .  Lim. A. L. 125-127.  Lin.S.. February 2).limkitsiang. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 213-222. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. E.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.M. C. H. (Ed.  Levy.A. K. (2004).  Loo. 36.  Lindsey.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. (1980). Levenson.  Looi. Retrieved May 14. Hwang. W.. (1960). (Ed. M-R. (2007). 2007 from http://thestar. (1999. 8-9  Liverant. 2007 from http://www. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1981). The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. In Rothe. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S. 536-545.. powerful others and chance. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. H-D.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. In Lefcourt.
 Maruyama.M.A. (2003).) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.M. Monash University Accident Research Centre. A.  Luckner. (Ed. In Dorn. Vissers.  Maakip. Quality & Quantity.W. Journal of Rehabilitation. (1994..W. S. R. M. H. W.  Marsh.R. C. G. Australia. and Mooran. 233-252). Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. 18(4). 27(1).  Martin. (1986). May). J. R.A. 62-67. G. Report No. H.  Marsh. Watson. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.F. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. 68(5). L. 869-897. and Balla. 299313. and Williams. Lourens. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. Accident Analysis and Prevention. of affect.. C.L. 103. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (2000). J. and Hershberger.R. 73-87.L. 593-597.P.L. Balla. Malaysia. and level of education. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. 55(2). (1988).K. K.  Marcoulides.L. Journal of Personality.  Macdonald. and McDonald.F. (1994). Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. 129. 185-217. I. D. behavior and cognition. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Campbell. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.. J.  Massie. (1999).M. Annual mileage. P. (1998). (1989). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. and Jessurun. (1995). Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. D. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A.  Matthews.A. 391-411. (1997). Victoria NSW.R.28. age.. Psychological Bulletin. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. 31. 264 .L. M. R. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. and Wan. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.
71-77.  McKenna. Rinehar and Winston. E. F. and Neilly. J. Hampshire UK. P. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support...htm  McConnell. F. 265 . Malaysia Today. The University of Reading.  Mercer. (2009). Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. I. D. Retrieved April 5. Sambasivan. Unconscious suicides. R.. November 6). 29. Risk Analysis.malaysia-today.  McKenna. I.  Md-Sidin.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. M. Waylen.P. G.P. [ in press]. (1974). 37(6).R.V. Psychological Medicine. 45-52. M. S.  McKenna. L. Perspectives Psychiatriques. (1989).  McMillan. 649-663. Beresford. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Ismail. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. Gilbody. (1977).. (2005. (1989). Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007 from http://www. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. New York: Guilford. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Meichenbaum. New York: Plenum. (1986).D. (1990). Duncan.  Mendel.  McRae. 173-181. (2007). and Costa.. 9. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. G. and Burkes. 34(47). Ergonomics. A. Personality in Adulthood.E. J. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (1998).W. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. D. and Brown. Understanding Human Behavior..E. (1983). 23. F. 769-778.P. S.
org. 341-353. Turku. (1983. and Laflamme. D. V. 38(6). (Eds.. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.L. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Aggressive driving.  Mikkonen. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.  Mintz. (1997).) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. Hasselberg. Retrieved December 15. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. Nhan.  Mintz. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Washington DC. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2006). and Johnson. Bulmas. L. (1989).. 75-85. 147-161. 21(4).L.A. K. In Aggressive driving: three studies. J.  Monárrez-Espino. 266 . L.org/pdf/agdr3study.php. (2003). l. A. Finland. E. New York: Plenum. Statistics. 6(2). (1985). Simulator performance. Safety Science. In Helkama.  Miles. what should we do? In Evans. and Niemi. May). Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. E. Michon.my/en/street_smart_statistik. and Shapiro. H. 44(2). 195-211. and Schwing.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes.A. M. 335-342.panducermat. 33(3). R. J. 401406.  Michon.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).E.pdf  Moller. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness.  Mizel. J.aaafoundation. A. from http://www. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1949). G. J. (2006). Retrieved May 23.L. (Eds. M.J. 61(3). C. L. and Keskinen. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models.. Kayumov. 2006 from http://www.. 2007. Journal of Applied Psychology.M. (154). microsleep episodes. and Blum. P. Time intervals between accidents.C.
6. R. Accident proneness and road accidents. 51-63. H. Boston: Pearson.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. and Summala.. (1956).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. A. J. T. Transcultural Psychiatry.L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. K. In O’Donoghue . R. MY: Sage.. D.  Morris. W. and Summala H. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.  Nandy.E. (2003). (Eds. and Comrey.  Niméus. P. (1994). 8. Religioin 37. 164-174. L. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 137-144.  Neuman. 125-132.T. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents.S. (1987). Montag. A. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. and Astur.  Most. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 167-202). Journal of Applied Psychology. A. 320-388).L. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (1976).  Mousser. 339-343. 72. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Amsterdam: North Holland. A.  Moore. Journal of Affective Disorders.B. R. (1999). and Gomez. A.  Näätänen. Fifth Edition. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. 38(1). (Eds. (2007).  Novaco. Nandy. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach.  Näätänen. (1974). 267 . 32-37. 42. Visual Cognition. 15(2). and Krasner. W.L. Rajasingham-Senanayake.. R. I. (2007). Petaling Jaya. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. E. 243-261. and Maniam.
(1997). (Eds. and Olson. Human factors in modern traffic systems. Zwi (1997).  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. I.W. and Z. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Injury Prevention. and Hermida.R. In Baenninger. Driver suicides.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers.L.L (2002). and Lonnqvist. P. (1998). 2(5). Aldershot. (2001). J. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. 43-76). 1016-1024. In Fuller. R.  Noy. (2007. R. J.A. R. N51. P.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. R. 445-460. UK: Ashgate. Tucson. Oxford UK: North Holland. In Dewar. 40(10). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.B. 4(2). 34.F (2001). M. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. p. Pentilla. Ergonomics. A. (1996).  Ochando. P. 92-93. M.  O’Connell. Garner. 4. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. (2002).. British Journal of Psychiatry. December 9). Novaco. F. Driver perception-response time. Temes. J. p. K. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Aggression on roadways.. and Santos.  Olson. Tropical Medicine and International Health.W. (1996. February 8). E. says operator. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Spanish Journal of Psychology.  Ogden. and Williams.  O’Neill. Straits Times. 268 . W. B.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. 253-326).S.38. (1997).W. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. (Ed. A. (2000). 468-472. 654-656. R. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. 201-215). 237-252.  Ohberg. A. 171. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.  Novaco.
C. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T. (2002). L. (2004). 1036-1048. 34. 507-526. Journal of Environmental Psychology. British Journal of Psychology.T. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).. 479-486. W. and Huguenin.E.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Helsinki..S.  Parkinson. C. R.R.  Özkan. Tassinary.  Parker. Hebl. R. 533-545. T. O. A.  Parker.M. Accident Analysis & Prevention. J. 18. (2001). 2007 from www.G. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. T. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. Lajunen.pdf -  Pai. (2008). Lajunen. M. and Synodinos.R and Stradling... J. 269 . S. M. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). (1988). Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.A.  Parsons. Anger on and off the road. (1995). Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 92. (1998). D. Reason.W. J.ictct.  Parsons.. Accident Analysis & Prevention.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.  Parker. and Schneider. T. 38(3). (Eds. R. Retrieved December 20. 3-13. and Kaistinen. and Grossman-Alexander. 37(1). Ergonomics. and Lajunen (2005). and Summala. Driving errors. N. Traffic locus of control. and Saleh. 113-140. Manstead.S. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. (1974). D. Finland. (2005). 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. 42. 456-461. B. 125-134).  Papacostas. T. Ulrich. driving violations and accident involvement. Applied Psychology: An International Review. D. Personality and Individual Difference. 38(5).G. (pp.. Özkan. 40.S.D.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 229-235.
Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. D.  Peters.A. D.. Perceptual and Motor Skills.  Perry. 1153. and Peters. and Baldwin. Campo Grande. London: Taylor & Francis..H. 619-623. (2000). Brazil. Peden. M. A. G. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.s  Pelz. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. (1999). Locus of Control in Personality. E. and Al Haji. and Hyder. British Medical Journal. S. M.R. (1980). (2005). P. A.ictct. R. W. A..  Per. 2007 from http:www.M. K. Automotive Vehicle Safety.. J.  Peden. 875-878. World report on road traffic injury prevention. 147-154. U. 3. (2002). (2002). M. 12(3).A. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Scurfield. (1976).  Peltzer. 91..and Schuman. Sleet. B. Superstition.) (2004). and Singh. 9-14 270 . B. Matto Grosso do Sul. Taillard. D. D. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research.  Pestonjee. and Mathers (Eds. Morristown NJ: General Learning. Mohan. L. Bioulac. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 35..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry.. 201-204. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 324. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Hyder. Geneva.  Phares. (1986). Retrieved March 31. (1971). 8(1). Perceptual and Motor Skills. Quera-Salva. and Renner. T. A.J. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Jarawan.  Philip. Journal of Sleep Research. Simple reaction time.A. and Åkerstedt.J.B. 68-79. (2003). March 20-22. E. 63.R. G.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
 Prociuk. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 3112). S. Stradling.J.E. Plous. L.-G. C.  Reason.  Radin Umar. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 78-80. W. F. 26. internal-external locus of control and depression. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 271 . (1990).A. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. 16(3). and Pant. 29(1).. (1989). S.  Reeder. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. Human Error. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Chalmers. Journal of Applied Psychology. Traffic Engineering and Control.D. and Anderle. J. Breen. (2007). 1315-1332.  Reason. 317-333. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 284-288. T. (1994). (1996). J. and Langley. S. 20(4). S.. 566-573. Disaster Prevention and Management. (1991). T. 32.  Ranney. J. (1976). New York: McGraw Hill.N. C.  Preston. R.S.S. (1990). IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. and Lussier. 673-678. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.. Hopelessness. 334-343. 369-374  Renner.. K. 33.I. 299-300. (2005). (1993). Baxter.  Rautela. R. D. S. 733-750. Cambridge University Press. and Campbell.. S.  Proctor. (1965). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. and Corlett. A. J. (2000). and Harris. 32(2). Rider training. 32(3). P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Manstead. Ergonomics.J. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. 49(4). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone.J. E.H.  Porter.J.
Organizational Behavior. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.D. Ergonomics. H.P. Tippetts. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.  Robbins. (2007) Statistik2006. (2000). Retrieved May 23. 485-489. M. Weinstein. Retrieved December 11. and Voas.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. T. Journal of Safety Research. 569-582. 272 . and Downe. In Lim. Tippetts. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. 2007 from http://www. and Solomon. Anger. R.B. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. P. (2003. cities. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.G. and Huguenin. P-A. 45(8).S. Stress and Health.64.190.L. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. (Eds. (2002).  Richardson. 37(1). 37(3). (1999). (2004). P. 1-7. S. Retting. Singapore: Elsevier.R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Risser. R. 34(15).Y. (2000).pdf  Risser. Journal of Safety Research. Report to the General Assembly. and Nickel. E. (2003). 2007 from http://202. In Rothengatter. E..html  Robbins.  Romano. S. Theories of science in traffic psychology. and Voas. (2005). Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (Ed). W-R. K.  Romano...  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.  Rice. R. S. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. S. April). R. 453-460.G. Amsterdam: Elsevier. A. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. R.A. R.  Rimmö.efpa.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.
A.  Rotter. (1966).  Rowley. T.  Rothengatter. American Psychologist. J.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. P-E. (2005). and Bhopal. J. (2002).  Rotter. 84-115. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. 56-67. J. 10.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 249-258.  Rotter. (2007). (1990). (2005).  Rothengatter.B. Psychological Monographs. 428-435  Rothe. T. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. and Bhopal.B. 214-220). 308-331. G. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Boston: Kluwer. Capital & Class. C.B. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. In Barjonet. 595-600).  Rothengatter. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. T. (pp. 273 . topics and methods. 88.  Rowley. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. Traffic safety: content over packaging. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. (1998). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. In Rothe. T.  Rothengatter. 5.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. J. 45. 80. In Underwood. C. and Shahar.P. (Ed. (Ed. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (Ed. (1975). G.(Ed. 3-12). An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. M. 489-493. (2002). 43(3).) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. 43(1). J. (2001) Objectives.B. whole issue. Rosenbloom.P. (2006). T. M.
 Sadiq.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). September 26). 33-36. Accident Analysis and Prevention. IBU Pejabat Polis. IBU Pejabat Polis. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. The Star.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003).  Rude drivers lack emotional control.A. Kuala Lumpur.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001).  Salminen. 373-376.my. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. (2005. Thrills. Bukit Aman.malaysia-today.A2. September 29). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. 37(2). sports and home accidents. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Bukit Aman. p. M. Bukit Aman.  Sabey. 23-42).  Salminen. (2002).net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. IBU Pejabat Polis. In Fuller. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Kuala Lumpur. Accident Analysis and Prevention. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Retrieved December 11.  Saad.rmp. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 2003 from http://www. (1997). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. (1999).gov. Kuala Lumpur. Road Safety – Back to the Future. Correlations between traffic.htm 274 . Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. B. J. S. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. J. Bukit Aman. and Santos (Eds. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). F. (2005).). S. 29(1). and Heiskanen. Kuala Lumpur. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. IBU Pejabat Polis. (2006. Retrieved May 22. occupational. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. 2007 from http://www. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].
and Schade. (2000). Nagoya: Japan. L. K. 484-491. 29(3). Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. V.K. In Sansone. (Ed. F.E. and the social psychological road in between. 3-16). M. 35. In Healy. C. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. L. C. K. 41. H.L.  Scuffham. 293302  Salih. Jr..A.A. D. P. 38. (2004). M.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. and Rizzo. and Bourne. 6. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Sagberg. and Panter. and Bourne.F. Morf. and Panter.C. A. A. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage..F.T. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. In Honjo. conscientiousness.. November 15). (1997). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 34. Ball. Asian Survey. Fosser. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C. (2006). v.  Schwebel.  Scuffham. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. B.F. J.  Sambasivan. 801-810. (2008. Applied Economics. (1995).  Schneider.. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Sendut. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. I. (2003). Jr. and sensation seeking. M. and Young. Personal correspondence. 673-687. C.A. The research process: of big pictures. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. A. and Sætermo. K. Regional Development Series. Morf. M.C.I.. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. J. and Langley (2002). 179-188.E. S. Severson. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. 314-318. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. Traffic Engineering + Control. Healy. Ericsson.  Sansone..C.). (Eds. 275 . Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. little details. P.  Schlag. 117-147).T. (1966). 6(9). (1981)..
Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. D. Ergonomics. (2003). Boston: Kluwer.. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.M. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. J. 25. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.  Selzer. D.  Shinar.E.  Siegel.  Siegriest. P-E. and Zakowska.  Sharma. Journal of Counseling and Development. and Kanekar.  Sharkin. 1549-1565. Fourth Edition. 180-205). M. J. New York: McGraw Hill. Automobile accidents. U. 325-343. L. Hartwick. P.  Shinar.  Shapiro. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. and Warshaw. R. 15(3). B. (1956).S. 1. E. Summala. Sekaran. (1988). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 276 . B. Hult. M.H.  Shook. 66. suicide and unconscious motivation. In Barjonet. (2004). C. 3-7.P. C.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 361-365. and Payne. D. 137-160. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study.J. A. Ketchen.. American Journal of Psychiatry. 51(1). Dewar. (2001). S. (Ed.L.. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2000).E. and Roskova. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 119(3). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). (2003). Strategic Management Journal. (1988).L. Journal of Consumer Research. 397-404. K.M and Kacmar. 237-240. G.. H. S. (1962). 46(15).. (2007). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.T. (1998).  Sheppard. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
(1992). Matthews. 50(8).  Slovic. (1995).C.  Smiley.  Stanton. 2007 from http://findarticles.J. Corrigan. 277 .. M. In Kassinove. 47(8). Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. Ergonomics. and Guest. Journal of Risk and Insurance. Winter).  Stanton. Boca Raton. N. Editorial. Retrieved December 25.. P. B. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. 14(4). B. Retrieved December 1. (1977). 1-18). N.C. A. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.. Houston. 2007 from http://www. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. (2001.pdf  Spielberger. Reheiser. London: Arnold.D. S. J. 237-258.K. C.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. and Coombs. Auto safety and human adaptation. Jr.  Slinn. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Lichtenstein. Sinha. Kurylo. Fishchoff. N.. (2007). expression and control of anger. B.). H. and Watson.. 1029-1030. D. S. C.J. (Ed. (2004). 21(4). Oxford UK. M.G. J. E.K.A. Issues in Science and Technology. 1151-1158. and Frank.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. FL: Taylor & Francis. C. Crowson. 477-492. 44. R. In Stanton. P. Product design with people in mind. (2007). 386-397.org/publik/driving. International Journal of Stress Management. B. and Sydeman.D.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. (1998).  Spielberger.. (1997).A. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. B.A. American Psychologist. 49-68)..sirc. (Ed. Measuring the experience. P..R. Stress. August). 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. Cognitive Therapy and Research. and Poirier.
H. T. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Cheltenham. (2005)..M. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. 247-254..) Intelligent Transportation Systems.R. In Stough. Maggio. J. N. (2003). 2(4).  Stewart. 43(9). R. N. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Stokols. Morrison. and Erol. UK: Edward Elgar. 178-182. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. M. 1359-1370. E. Sümer. New York: Guilford. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. 44(3). Trabasso. 681-688. 37(4). Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. A.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. 279-300). N..  Steiner. Journal of Psychology. J. M. R. and Pinto.E. 949-964. and Jin. Traffic Injury Prevention.. N.R. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. G. and Ryan.A. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. D. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. Bilgic. Type A Behavior. J. (Eds. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. M. Traffic congestion. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs.  Subramaniam. (2001). and Havland.. N.  Stevenson. 139(6). N. Stokols. 35. Journal of Applied Psychology. Stanton. In Lewis. (2001). Ergonomics. (1978).. and Campbell. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Medical Journal of Malaysia. D. T.. M. 467-480.W. (1993).E. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. (Ed. R. 529-544. 63.C. (2000). (2005). Palamara.L. D.. and stress. (1996).  Sümer. (1988). Novaco.  Storey. R. M.  Sümer. 278 . P. R.  Stough.A.  Stein. The Methodology of Theory Building. and Liwag.
N. H. Karanci. H. Human Factors.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. H. and Punto. and Näätänen.. (Eds. Ergonomics. (1997). 703-711. A. 38(3). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. T. 18(4). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. G. (2005). Özkan. 103-117. (1980). and Tantriratna.  Sümer. Personal resources. 31. S. Nguntra. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. R. and de Bruin. Koonchote. W. (Ed. (Eds. Nieminen. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. (2006). N. A. Accident risk and driver behaviour. Safety Science. Berument. and Gunes.K. H. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. vehicles. T.  Summala. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.  Summala. 41-52). G. 22(1-3). In In Rothengatter.  Summala.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (1986). Journal of Traumatic Stress. 21.. and Carbonell Vaya E. (2005). 383-394). S. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety.  Summala.  Summala. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 193-199. H... In Rothengatter. 38.N. T. Helsinki. 442-451.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. T. Mahasakpan. Sümer. (1996). R. (Report 11). H. 331-342. (1994). Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.  Swaddiwudhipong.. and Lajunen. P. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. P. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications.  Summala. (1988). (1988). and Merisalo. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . In Underwood. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit.  Summala. 82-92). T. H. 491-506. M. H. (1996). The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision..
J. 353-369. (1985). 167-172. (2000). Kuhn. Journal of Clinical Psychology. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. G. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. (1989). (2001). 241-263). (1985). Sakamoto. 241-257. E. J. E. T.  Tavris. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. The interaction of attention and emotion. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.. (1996).  Thompson. P. 609-615.  Tanaka. Fujihara.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.M.  Tanaka.  Theodorson. 33(2). International Review of Applied Psychology.  Theeuwes.A. 18(4). A. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. and Kitamura. 138(5). D. (eds. 42. 34. (2001).road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. and Papacostas.C. 37-44. Ono. Ono.  Synodinos. Neural Networks. L. and Kitamura. S.S.  Tavris.J. 581-590. In Barjonet. G. S. 280 . P-E.. The effects of road design on driving. E. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.E. S. C. J.S. In Grimm. and Layde. and Yarnold. and Fragopanagos (2005). Y.M. G. Sakamoto.R. S. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. C. and Huba.R.  Taylor.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. New York: Simon & Schuster.. Fujihara.  Tanaka. (1998). Boston: Kluwer.. 52(6). Accident Analysis and Prevention. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. 25(1).G.233-239. and Theodorson. N. T. Journal of Social Psychology. B. P.. (Ed. (1969).. Y.
W. 10(3). P.  Trick. and Kahneman. (1985). H. B. J. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. (1949). Cognitive Psychology. 147-152. G. 445-448. The accident prone automobile driver. Personality and Individual Differences. 123-130. R. Volume 3: Attention. (2003). 32(3). A. (1973). 23(1). Judgment under uncertainty. D. 55-68. 2. 11-22. C.  Tversky.  Tversky.  Trimpop. A. J. (1993). 4(4). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving.  Tiliman. accident involvement. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Mills. (1997). C. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.  Underwood. (1974). and McClure. and Vavrik.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Wright and Crundall. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. 5(5). 7. 5. London: Academic.. 385-424. L. Anger while driving. American Journal of Psychiatry.F. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. G. Chapman. and Kahneman. G.. G. J. (1996). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2001)..W. R. 281 . Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. Personality subtypes of young drivers.E. Enns. 207-332. O. D. and response to a traffic safety campaign. Science. (2004). and Everatt.. and Kirkcaldy. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. (1999). 279-297. and Milton.T. Personality predictors of driving accidents.  Ulleberg.  Underwood.A and Hobbs. In Neumann.  Turner. 106(5). 185. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. P.M. D. and Sanders. Applied Cognitive Psychology. A. J. 1124-1130. (Eds.  Underwood. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. 321-333. Thurman.
D. A.. (1999). March 20-22. Campo Grande. D. Harrison. R.A. W. Brazil. W.M. H. Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (1999). On-line driver workload estimation. 9(2). M.D.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo.. 913-921. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Personality and Individual Differences. T. (1998).  Vasconcellos. 181-190). 2007 from www. (2001).pdf  Vallières. 24-29. Retrieved September 1. (2000). Sanson. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Retrieved December 5. 444-458. J.B. Cockfield. (2005).” Recovery. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Rothengatter. J. G.J.ictct.  Vaa. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Italy. Matto Grosso do Sul. T. T. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures.ictct. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. (2004). and McIntyre. Ergonomics... 26.  Verwey.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 282 . (Eds. (2007). A.F.A. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. and Vallerand. É.  Vavrik. and Huguenin. 43(2). 2007 from http:www.  Velting. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Caserta. In Underwood. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. “Accident prone. S. Bergerson. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Harris. 336-345. J. Smart.. E.. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.F.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. (Ed.D. and Rothengatter. 39. Meijman. Utzelmann.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 42. (2005). S. 210-222. A..
B. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. G. 421-444. A.  Waterman. P. (1997). The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). 117128. and Carbonell Vaya E.R. and Åberg. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. (2000).  Waller.. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.E.pdf  Wei.html.A. (2009. and McKenna. Transportation and society. (2006). 123-142. January 21). New Zealand. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2008 from http://www. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. 50(4). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.H. W. Verwey. P. Stanton.  Walker. (1998).com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 283 . and Little. Retrieved December 15.com/articles/waterman37. M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. (2001).backwoodshome. T.M. 9. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. and Young.. (2002). H. In Rothengatter. P.. M. 1-8). (2001).P. 5(4).. A. R. D. L.B.  Waller.J. Raghunathan. Heppner.F. 427-433. 2007 from http://www. 28.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time.  Waylen. Wellington.  Watson. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.T. Backwoods Home Magazine. N.. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved November 2. Elliot. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.A. (Eds. F. M. 438-447. and Zaidel. 33.P. J. Shope. T. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.F.S. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety.  Wállen Warner.theaa. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. 1149-1152. Ergonomics. Preventions of accidents in childhood. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. Advances in Paediatrics.S. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. 8. Target Risk.L. Guiling. G. E. (2005). G. (1982). University of Waterloo Press. K. 15(11/12). G. 195. G.J.W.). and Klerman. 1116-1121. In Halsey. (2007).J. (ed.  Wilde. Elander.S. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.J.  Wilde. Wiliams. Accident Prevention. Risk Analysis.  Wheatley. Dunaway. P. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. 207-219. (1973).. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .M (1956). Childhood accidents.J.N. 441-468. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. (1988). 324.  Wilde. J. M. (1994).S. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Wheatley.. Mild social deviance.S.  Wilde. (1961). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. and French. Toronto: PDE Publications. (2002). 34. 209-225.  Wilde. S.J. (1984). British Journal of Psychology. G. M..S. 271278. and Anderson. S.  Wells-Parker. American Journal of Psychiatry.S. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. J. Fox. (Ed. G. Ceminsky. G.J. 450-455. In Yager. G. (2002). (pp. 130(4). Snow. G.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. D. 84.. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. B. (1993).  West. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. 135-154)...  Wells. Weissman. R. 2. M. Hallberg. 31. R. G.M.  Wilde..
F. Wood. and Shabanova. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population.  Williamson. J. (Ed.  Wood.. 55(175).S. M. T. 8.  Williamson. Matto Grosso do Sul. and Hartman.I. A.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Campo Grande. J. Flyte and Garner.G. (2004). Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.  Williams. D.C. (2008). Responsibility of drivers.K. J.Y. A. Countries and Their Cultures.  Williams. 285 . Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.  Woodcock. Space and Culture. March 20-22. 110-131. 99-109. 26(6).. 2007 from http:www. 807-811. N.J.Workshop. Psychological Assessment. E. M. Retrieved March 31. S. International Social Science Journal. and Boyd. (2001). (2003). Applied Ergonomics. S. and Well. M. Boyd.ictct. 398-403.  Williams. (1994). N. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. L.F. (2003). A.. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. (2003).A. Journal of Safety Research. 31. Welsh..  Wilson.. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. New York: Taylor & Francis. 6(2). Cascardi. V. Brazil. T. 34(5). (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. by age and gender. (1996). J.B. A. In Hanson. Lenard.  Williams. T. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Boston: Pearson.R. Mastering the World of Psychology.E.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. 527-531. 303346. 1. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. and Poythress.G. 557-567. Gavin. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. (1999).
and Harris.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.  Zikovitz.  Yergil. 46-58. Ergonomics. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. theatre and tourism. L. 487-503). (2005). (2007). 286 . 50(1). Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Ergonomics. D. S.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). 33(3).C. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. and Chaffin. D. (Ed. G. Report of an Advisory Group. Head tilt during driving. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. and Stanton. 473-485. X. Technical Report Series No. M. 43(9).  Yaapar. (2005).  Zhang. Islam. N. D. 118. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. (1999). 740-746. Geneva. In Underwood.A. Ergonomics. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957).S. Asian Journal of Social Science. (2000). Country reports. 42(5). .R. 1314-1330. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.
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. presumably because of personality factors. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. (see also. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. or benefits. allowing the wheel to turn. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. on most surface types. ABS ensures that. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. As a result. differential accident involvement). to the individual” (Brown & 287 . the brake line pressure is relates. Immediately after releasing the pressure. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre.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.
In the present research. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. including driver behaviour. 288 . and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki.Noy. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. McKenna of the University of Reading. p. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. road and traffic conditions. (see also. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. Also referred to as risk compensation. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. it refers to a combination of circumstances. time of week and. distal variable. risk homeostasis theory. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. 2004. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. proximal variable. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. (see also. characteristics of road users. where possible. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. 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. 25). the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. task capability theory) . driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. The central idea is that. (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. (see also. rather than a theory.
It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. motivation. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. aptitudes. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. Department of Transportation. in-crash. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). selfefficacy and self-esteem. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. self-concept. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P).Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. William Haddon Jr. ability.. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. values. intelligence. 289 . One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 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). (see also. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. personality) Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB): a body set up in Great Britain during World War One to investigate the cause and prevention of industrial accidents. interests. In traffic psychology.S. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. 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. (see also. not as a unidimensional. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk.
p. 1985. Wilde.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. the individual differences approach. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. For the purposes of the present research. motorised bicycles. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J.S. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. mobile construction equipment or platforms. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. trucks (lorries). individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. 333-334). motor vehicles included automobiles. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . For the purposes of the present research. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. 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”. including life goals” (Chaplin. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Personality: is the integration of traits that can be investigated and described in order to render an account of the unique quality of the individual. the ego and the superego. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. motorcycles. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. That is. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. 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. Included in this term are walking. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. bicycling. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. Private speech: see self-talk. and buses. conversely. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. most usually on roads.
as the result of injury sustained in the crash. archways and footpaths. draining system. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. stopping places. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. overpasses. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. but only 291 . It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. including the network. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. Road safety engineering: “a process. 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.” (Ogden. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. behavioural adaptation. parking spaces. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. bridges. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. 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. Within the context of this research. tunnels. target risk. 35). Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. 1996. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. signage. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. at both conscious and unconscious levels. (see also. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. p. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network.
and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. 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. 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. On dry roads. (see also. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. theory of reasoned action. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). which are the best predictors of behaviour. (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. remains constant at the target level. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. (3) the benefits expected from cautious 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. According to RHT proponents. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . According to Wilde (1994). Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). (see also. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. behaviour control) (see also. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour.
The five basic transportation factors include: safety. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. ergonomics. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. (see also. In the present research. coordinating. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. 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. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. road engineering. management science and economics.Traffic management: planning. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. from its outset. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. comfort. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. community planning. convenience and economy. motorised and non-motorised. that share the same road infrastructure. time. behavioural adaptation. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
eng.S. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Buss & Warren. Papacostas & Synodinos.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. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Brace & Company). C.hawaii. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.edu/~csp/csp. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. 2000).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.wpspublish. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. 19500 Bulverde Road.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. CA 90025 USA http://portal. 1993).html 295 . Beck & Steer. San Antonio.
Kansas 66045 USA www. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Crowson. Snyder. Snyder. 296 . Houston.psych.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.ukans. C.R. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.edu/hope.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
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 .g. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6..what manufacturer & model (e. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. please answer the following questions: 2. 1.g. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. _________. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. _________. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. Most of the time when you travel. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. We are not asking for your name.
do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . most of the time ___ no 10. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.8. When you want to use a motorcycle. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. most of the time ___ no 11. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9.
Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. 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:__________________________________________ ) 15. 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. What is your gender? 16. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . 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.12. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. Within the last twelve months.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.