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

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

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

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

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

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

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

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

iv

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

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

v

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

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

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

vi

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

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. 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. Among distal variables. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. BIT. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. As reported in previous studies.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Results indicated that. As hypothesised. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. The role of the proximal variable. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. as well. viii . The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed.

3.4 1.2 1.3.2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1.1 Concepts. Theories and Models 2.2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.4.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3.5 1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 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 2.3.4 Risk Theories 2.2 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.3.3 ix .3.3 1.1 1.3.1.2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.

1.2 Gender 2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5.3.1 Age 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.2.2 Process Models 2.5.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.4.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2.2.4.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.5.3.1.2.5.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.7.1 3.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2 Hopelessness 2.2.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3.3.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.6 2.5.5.2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.4 Hopelessness 3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.3.1 Locus of Control 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.4.3.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .5.4.1.3 Ethnicity 2.4 2.1.5 2.2.2.3.3.4.6.5.5.1.5. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.9.3.1.4.6.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.1 Statistical Models 2.3 Locus of Control 3.4.1 Experience 2.3.4.5.3.2.5.5.5.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.

1 Study 1A 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.5.7.3 3.7.7.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.6.6.5.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7 3.5.3 Study 1C 3.3.4 Study 2 3.7.6 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.1 The Sample 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.2.7.2 Research Instruments 3.7.7.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.2.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.5.2.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 3.5.3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.7.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.5.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.4 3.5.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.2.7.2.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.7.7.3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2.3.2 Study 1B 3.2.7.7.2.5.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.2.

6.2.2 Results of Study 2 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.3 4.6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.12.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3. Gender and Ethnicity 4.5 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.3.1 Age.6.12.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6 xii .6.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.2.6.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1.2 4.1.6.6.6.5.2.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.5.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.4 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3.1.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.5.2.6.2.1 Description of the Sample 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.1.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.

5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.4.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.7.8.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.6 xiii .3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.3.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.6.9.8.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5 5.3.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.7 4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.5.6.4 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.8.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.7.2 Study 2 4.5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 5.9.9.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.8 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.2 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.5.7.6.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Study 1C 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5.6.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3.8.

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 .2 Engineering Interventions 5.7.1 Theory vs.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7.7 5.4.4.7.3 Driver Selection. Training and Rehabilitation 5.5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4.3 Education 5.7.6.7.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.

LIST OF TABLES No. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.10 4.11 xv . Table Page 2.3 3.1 4.2 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.7 4.3 3.1 2. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.4 115 117 118 119 4.6 4.5 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.1 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.2 4.4 3.9 4.5 4.

12 4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.22 136 4.16 128 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.17 129 4.19 133 4.13 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.25 138 4.18 131 4.21 135 4.23 136 4.27 4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.24 137 4.29 xvi . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.20 134 4.14 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.28 4.

38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.4.32 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 4.33 4.35 4.30 4.4 208 5.31 4.5 209 225 5.36 4.3 5.37 4.39 4.34 4.1 199 206 207 5.41 175 5.2 5.6 xvii .

9 59 2. Hatakka.6 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. 1996.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.3 2.4 148 xviii . 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.2 2.2 147 148 4. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.LIST OF FIGURES No.4 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.1 4.3 3.1 2. 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 3.3 4.4 4.2 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.7 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.

9 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 4.12 4.4.13 xix .10 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.

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

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

2 .732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 1989). A total of 10. McKenna. 2004. including the study of a large number of variables.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. According to Dewar (2002b). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The chapter 1.351. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. locus of control. 2002.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.roadway. 2007). This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. p. 2003).790. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 21).332 drivers and 15.112). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 1983). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. “the literature on personality has a long history. 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. There was a total of 341. However.

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

aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. Parker. Sümer (2003).Increasingly. vehicle. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 2004).e. 1997). externally-focused frustration. 1. 2005). 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 turn. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. for instance. Speeding. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. A frequent criticism. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i.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.. Noy (1997). however. 1996. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 .e. 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.. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. in particular. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. Hampson & Morris.

Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. (d) driver hopelessness. (e) driver aggression. (c) driver locus of control. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. The 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. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. 5 . 2005. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. injuries and deaths. gender and ethnicity. 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. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (b) driving experience. 9). By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. p. but also on their interactions. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. situated as proximal variables. 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 9. Subramaniam & Law.200 9.417 47.287 in 2006. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. This suggests that studies.891 8.885 35. in Malaysia.264 2006 341. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.741 38.552 37. Table 2.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. Mohd Zulkiflee. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.20 deaths per 10.012 19.645 54. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. 2005).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.040 2004 6. drivers within the senior secondary school and university age ranges must be regarded as being at a potentially higher level of risk than other age cohorts.000 vehicles in 2006.000 vehicles (Law.415 52. 2005). Studies 13 . Abdul Rahman.091 37.653 2004 326.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. 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.425 5.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.815 2005 328.2). from 189. 2007). 2005). Table 2. Radin Umar. & Wong.304 in 1994 to 6. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.395 2006 6. In Malaysia. 2003.287 9.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Generally.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.236 49.218 2005 6.7111 2003 298.425 2003 6.228 9.98 deaths per 10.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.

72 554 2.23 2.48 105 0.91 984 4.551 12.469 15.216 10.27 458 2. Table 2.94 625 3.81 1.47 280 1.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.180 10.21 3. 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.64 135 0.41 302 1.29 2. 2003).953 17.80 203 0. general insurers paid RM1.06 608 3.448 17.85 147 0.48 323 1.26 463 2.31 3.023 5.94 1.10 3.418 100 19. 2006).45 30 0.29 708 3.65 121 0.37 337 1.947 10. and particularly among younger drivers.40 1.68 3.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem. It has been reported that.005 15.921 100 20. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.049 15.22 150 0.08 2.16 90 0.593 11.11 2.99 164 0. 14 . 2001).84 1.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.49 450 2.709 8.08 1. 2001. Morrison & Ryan.620 7. in 1999 alone.110 10.85 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.07 2.67 billion. or an average of RM4.7 billion. Palamara.341 12.54 708 3.92 2.309 10.389 6.65 2.086 9.803 9.315 17.05 2.431 7.77 3.178 15.025 9.08 585 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. 2002.15 43 0.50 979 4.416 6.61 99 0.15 3.820 13.4 billion to RM5.05 2.97 1.71 543 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. 2005).378 11. or about 2.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.997 14.56 3.90 159 0.82 1.68 128 0.967 100 19. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.08 541 2.67 206 0.15 572 2.94 2.81 3.038 13.07 2.205 11.05 1.81 2.92 1.63 160 0.034 4.76 22.

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

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 . 2001.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. unlike in other countries. 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. though. Researchers. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. In a recent newspaper interview. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. newspaper columnists. how they think. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 2007). as compared with 1. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. for instance. 2007). 2006). most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. Krishnan & Radin Umar. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. Who they are. Generally. 2005). is often mentioned as a factor. given greater risks of accident. 2005). 1997).(Abdul Rahman et al. 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. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3.

Mohd Nasir. In a separate study. 17 . Law et al. 2. perhaps.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. conspicuity and excessive speeding. 2007). The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. respectively. rather than personality factors. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. injuries and fatalities.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. Ahmad Hariza. Musa. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. In the same study. Law. This is. Bartle & Truman. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. In none of the studies of the MSP.1. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. For instance. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Chalmers & Langley. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. however. 1996). Ward. Radin Umar.

motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. they are accident prone. According to Williamson. 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. 18 .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. 121-122). This. The very monotony of the road surface. 110). 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. 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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. resulted in a myriad of problems. 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. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. He argued that. 1996). the factor that made the high speeds possible. has linked peninsular communities. however. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress.122). generalising to all driving environments and situations. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 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.

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

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

the lack of replication of many studies. 482).2. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.2. 1997a). 2002. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. there has been an interest in driver personality. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 21 . the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 1961. Preston & Harris. the use of inconsistent crash definitions.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 2003). 1993). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. the picture that emerges is indeed grave.2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 2005). 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. 2003). Nevertheless. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. 1996. information processing. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables.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. Underwood & Milton. 321). 2.

that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. 2002). 4). in the field of traffic. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. 246). Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. in a Spanish survey. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. anthropology and sociology. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. 3).2. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. transportation planning.2.654-655.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. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. traffic and transportation. To wit. but that complex traffic 22 . or peculiar to.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. Indeed. According to Rothengatter (2001). medicine. or the psychological support for intervention. eoncompassing engineering. 2. psychology. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. ergonomics.” (p. Ochando.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 2.3. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 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.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations.. substantially. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 2000). For example. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. Wilde (1982. The introduction of divided highways. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. experience more accidents than others. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. in a study of driving on icy roads. A driver who enters a construction zone. Elander et al. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. large earth-moving 31 . in fact.accident proneness (Chmiel.4. That is. However. 2. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them.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. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. crash barriers. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. following their review of the literature. albeit not crash occurrence.

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

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

92). In addition. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 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. 1987. after a similar review.3. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. or expecting. O’Neill and Williams (1998). for example. In other words. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. 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. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 2. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.4. Summala. p. 26). Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. Rather. 81).(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 2004. and 34 .2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. At this point. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen.

Gregersen. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Reeder et al. for instance. Glad & Hernetkoskis. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. Meijman & Roghengatter. 1999).1). On the other hand.learn how to respond safety to. 2002. much of which arises from personality. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 1998. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. age and social variables. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. A large number of studies show that external motives. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. Keskinen. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. 1996. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.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. 2. and specific driver actions. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. such as time pressure. 35 . as a result.3. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Van der Hulst. Summala (1996. Hataaka. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts.

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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. at the same time. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. but that is not 36 .1: Task Cube (from Summala. 1996) Keskinen et al. seemingly concurrently. a property absent within the task cube concept. for example. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 15). Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.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.

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

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

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”). 1985.3.7. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. 2007).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). however (Sharma & Kanekar. According to the TPB.2). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. To deal with this uncertainty. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. p. 39 . denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 2. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). then. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will.” (Azjen.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. 24). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). “Even very mundane activities. see Figure 2.

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

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

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

arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. it may influence crash risk through some other. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. age.4. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk... sensation seeking.g. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.5). Therefore.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on the other hand.g.2. Within the generic model. gender.2. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. Personality factors within the 43 . 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. 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. on one hand. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. extraversion.g. 283). contribute directly to crash outcomes. substance abuse) that. aggression). speeding. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. as well. By contrast.. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. more proximal variable. reckless lane transitions or overtaking.

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

driver propensities to commit errors or violations.2. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. for instance. 45 . which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2003). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. 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 which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. such that path c′ is zero. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 2006).4.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. moderating or mediating effects.6(i). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 1986). M. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. called the outcome. In Figure 2. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. Tix and Barron. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. Figure 2. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. If.2. Also termed intervening variables. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. 2004). Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable.

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

anger). hostility. more relevant to the model he proposed.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. In turn.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. errors). Further. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice.4.2.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. Using structured equation modelling. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. given wide 47 . the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. he found that. verbal aggression. and non-professional students who were mostly students. anxiety. However. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. dangerous drinking). Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. psychoticism). hostility. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.

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

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

1997. Campbell & Williams.g. Weinstein & Solomon. 2003).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Odero et al.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Yet. Retting. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie..5 2. 2003. 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.5. 2002. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 1995).g. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. 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. Type A.1. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. 2007) 2.8)..5. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .Downe (2007).. Williams & Shabanova.

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

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

g. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Waller. “In all studies and analyses. darkness)” (p.g. without exception. as age decreased. as well. Monárrez-Espino. for instance.5. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. 2. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. MacGregor. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. it 53 . Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.failure to use seat-belts.. for instance. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. it was also hypothesised that. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. for instance. Elliott. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. 2004. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. p. self-reported injury would also increase. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident.. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. more often at hazardous times (e. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC].4). However. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Chipman.1.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. 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. Shope. Tavris. 129).

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

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

But.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes.2. for instance. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use.S. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Goldweig and Warren. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Marine. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. On the other hand. Lajunen.1. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Romano. In one of the few studies reported.5. 2005). Harper. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Levine. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Garrett. lower rates of safety belt use. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. nonCatholic countries. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Summala and Hartley (1998). Haliburton. Schlundt. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Corry. differences in fatalities persisted. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. To a large degree. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.

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

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

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

They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Mintz. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. Ghiselli & Brown. Female novice drivers. was used in this study.g. 1948. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Young novice drivers. 1954). 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. 2007). 2004). Brown & Ghiselli. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 1949. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . on the other hand. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Peltzer and Renner (2003).Laapotti et al. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low.. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. A simple measure of driving experience.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. for instance. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. and especially young male drivers. such as problems in vehicle handling skills.

Pelz & Schuman. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 1986. the miles they drive. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. the concept is much less well developed. 2. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. In individual differences research. Second. Rothengatter. 1995. 2001. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . technical or legal changes relating to road safety. and type of route where. it is accepted that the more one travels. First. 1993). Generally. Wilde. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic.2. 1984).5. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).. 1991). Duncan & Brown. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. 1984.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. McKenna.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 282). on crash and injury occurrence. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. driving occurs (Dewar. indirectly. for instance. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1971). Elander et al. 2002a). (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road.

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

3. 1991. Holder & Levi. she separated the externality dimension into two. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 15).10).. or externals . view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.5. 2006. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Levenson (1975. 63 . Stanley & Burrows.5.3. 1990). Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.2. 1975. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1999).3 Psychological Variables 2.g. 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.1 Locus of Control 2. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). In contrast. 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. Hyman. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p.1. and second.5. or internals.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.

Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. 64 . According to Phares (1976).Luckner.5. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. luck. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Sinha & Watson. 1989.1. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .

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

The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Gidron. On the other hand. 1260). it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. offences. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In a much earlier study. In an important study. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Arthur et al. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. 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). In a meta-analysis of information-processing. (p. although internality was unrelated to DDB. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. cognitive. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. That is. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. They found that. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables.

and the USA. India. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. indicated that. complexity and unpredictability.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Italy. Noting that Chinese culture. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Germany. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. (1991). after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. In very early research. Hsieh. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Noy (1997). moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Their results. 122). Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada.5. France. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Israel. Canada and Japan. as hypothesised. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. 2.3. is based on the notion that … luck. Japan.1. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 .

Chinese of Malay extraction. 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. 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. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. Chinese and Indian populations. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. Cheung.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. At the same time. skill and ability. 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. In very early research. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. only Cheung. 68 . ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. To the author’s knowledge. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. This was very true for the locus of control variable. all internal characteristics.

Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Beresford & Neilly. Gilbody. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. 1975).3. Weissman. First. Kovacs and Weissman. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 2007. 2.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Özkan & Lajunen. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Montag & Comrey. without objective basis. 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. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. In the present study. (2003). it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 1997. Cases usually 69 . Sinha & Watson. 1973). Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Fox & Klerman. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. 2007). Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Finally. McMillan. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. 1995. 1991. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. et al. on crash and injury occurrence. indirectly. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations.5. Ohberg. Niméus. 1987. 1975. 2005).

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

3 Aggression Since the 1980s. learned cognitive scripts. and deindividuation. physiological arousal. Chapman. Wells-Parker et al. learned disinhibitory cues. 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. 1999. 71 .3..5. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. In a largely unrelated study. & Darviri. 2002. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Koumaki. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion. 2002). Chliaoutaks. 2003. Tzamalouka. Malta & Blanchard. Barton and Malta. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 2000. including subjective feelings of stress.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Richards. Demakakos. Underwood. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Mizell. 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. 2006). Wright & Crundall. Bakou. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Filetti. Deffenbacher. 2. Lynch & Oetting. 2000.

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

Blumenthal. Petrilli. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. McKee. indirectly. Thurman. Elofsson & Krakau. Williams & Haney. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). impatience. insecurity about status. Undén. 2006). 1999. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Karlberg. 1999). 2. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. al.6. 2001).with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. that the total amount. 2000. Kumashiro & Kume.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. 2002. 1981. Later still. Magnavita. aggression. Carbone. Miyake. 73 . 1985). hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Rice. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al.. Sato. Deffenbacher. Bettencourt et al. on crash and injury occurrence. Narda. Lynch.6 2. Frueh & Snyder. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. In the present study. 1998. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 1999. and specific content. 2006. It was also hypothesised. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Sani. James & Nahl. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. competitiveness. Kamada. (2003).

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

At the same time. 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). ethnicity.6. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. Glass. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. In a subsequent study.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) as a Variable Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) also attempted to examine the TAPB dimensions that related to driving behaviour in a sample of Hawaiian university students. 2. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. 1977). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Of the four BIT factors.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Miles and Johnson (2003). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. on the other hand. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). then use of the Type A/B 75 . all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). Gender. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

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

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

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

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

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

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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

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

3.2.1

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

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

3.2.2

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

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

3.2.3

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

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

84

a thought process that expects nothing. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. cognitive. In the present research. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. Lester and Trexler (1974). such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. For each of the five studies undertaken. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 1999). For the purposes of the present research. a separate score for internality (I). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. 25). 3. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. Weissman.2. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. affective. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. but not chance. 1994).each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting.2. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . overlapping and ambiguous. 3.

Specifically. Vallières. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness.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). frustration. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. expressed through the presence of irritability. were also investigated. Oetting. In the present research. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 3. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 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. 1996). but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. through fighting. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. 2005).2. Bergeron & Vallerand. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. social alienation and paranoia. and. 1957. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 2003. hitting or interpersonal violence.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Lynch & Morris. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . Deffenbacher.

A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.2.7 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. 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. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. 1998). (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. characterised by excessive impatience. 3. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. and.. not allowing others to merge or overtake. the BIT score. 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. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. competitiveness. frequent lane changing.g. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.

9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.3 3. Then. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. to the extent of inattention conditions. travel frequency. and. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. the influence of driving experience. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.3.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 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.2.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.them (e. 3.. In the resulting measure of this variable. In the resulting measure of this variable. 3. in Study 1A.g. while driving. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). three demographic variables (driver age. Then. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 88 .2. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. (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.

Then. 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. travel frequency. In this study.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. In this study. three demographic variables (driver age.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Figure 3. three demographic variables (driver age. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Then. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. hopelessness.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. 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. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. Finally. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the influence of driving characteristics. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Finally. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Figure 3. Then.3. In Study 1B. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.

Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. This was justified for three reasons. and (b) taxi experience. Then. In Study 3.3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. 90 . Finally. First. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 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. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Then. Finally. Figure 3. In Study 3. Figure 3. 3.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the influence of experience.

the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .2.1. Third.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. 3.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4: 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. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. Second.2.1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.Table 3.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2.1.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3.

3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.5.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.3: 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. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. within a 14-month period. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3.5 3. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.

In all cases. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.2 Research Instruments 3. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. 1978). Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. in the case of Study 3 participants. 3.5. during a point to point trip.5. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Stokals & Campbell.2.time when they travelled.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.g. while participants were driving. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. by postal mail. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . Stokols. For inclusion in the study. Novaco.

I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “While travelling to work (or to school).91) were found to be internally consistent. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Table 3. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. with a coefficient alpha of .2. In a later study. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “On a clear highway. On each form. to school or to an appointment with someone. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Usurpation of right-ofway No. as indicated in table 3. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” II.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.80. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Their analysis revealed four dimensions. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Freeway urgency 14 III.

The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. 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. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. 3. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.5. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 96 . 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. References to the faster. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control.2. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).

” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “If I’m angry enough. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” 97 . Table 3. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.3.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.2. 1982. 2005. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.2.3).” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. 1974). and five subscales measure physical aggression. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. Durham.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.” “When people annoy me. 1993. if endorsed.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. anger. verbal aggression. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. 1996). if not. Tanaka et al. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.5. 3. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. I may tell them what I think of them.” “When someone really irritates me. Of the 20 true-false statements. Beck et al.” “I get into fights more than most people. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.5. I may mess up someone’s work. or 0. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 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”.

98 . 5 = “all the time”).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .71 to . Cascardi & Pythress. .2. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 1997. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. derogation of others and revenge respectively. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. Shapiro.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.5. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.91 for physical aggression. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.92. age.2.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. with coefficient alpha values of .” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. 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.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Williams. Snyder et al. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. gender. 2000). 1997. 3.88 and .” “I want to get back at this person. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. Three factors – physical aggression.” 3. 1996).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.4). Boyd.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .5. Table 3.

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

Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.2 Study 3 For study 3.0. The PIF was always administered first. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Two to four times daily. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area.5. analyses of variance (ANOVA). This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. BIT. 3. 2002). linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Independent-sample t-tests. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. Over the course of the trip.6. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. At initial contact. Data collection took place in taxicabs. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows.5. For safety reasons. AQ and Levenson scales. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. 13. Levenson Locus of Control scale. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. four female final-year undergraduate students. as well. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 2004). Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. 100 .3. rel. aged 22 to 24 years. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. rel. 8.

1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.Table 3.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: 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 H4.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.

4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.Table 3.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11. the lower the BIT level H8. the higher the BIT level H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: The higher the Internality.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.

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

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

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

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

validation index (ECVI).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. Hair et al.7. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. the higher the probability associated with χ2.0. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7. 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. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 107 . one incremental index.7. an insignificant p-value is expected.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. 3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 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. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7. 1998.10 indicate poor fit. pp. Thus. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 2006). and a measure of parsimony fit. the normed fit index (NFI). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).1 Chi-Square (χ2).7. 1998). 112). However.7.. 3. the ratio indicates a good fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 2006).00 in which values greater than .

1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. 2006).7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7. The index can range from zero to 1. Values range from zero to 1. Thus.00 being indicative of good fit.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.. 108 .10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7.7. The index ranges between zero and 1. 3. Bentler & Bonnet.00 with value closes to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.00.00. an RMR greater than . 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. the normed fit index (NFI. with higher values indicating better fit. 3. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.00. 3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00 with value more than . and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. Tanaka & Huba.7. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.

7. 2006). The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. 2006. It should be noted that.7. in this case.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. 109 . designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.7. Although values range from zero to 1.. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix..00. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 750). it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. Browne & Cudeck. Mulaik & Brett. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. p. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. considering its fit relative to its complexity. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.00. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. In such cases. James. 1994). Like other parsimony fit indices. 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. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. Values range between zero and 1. 3.7. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.3.

“It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. 3. 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. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.7. 1956). the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.05. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 2000). 1976. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . 37). which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 1976).3. p.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.7. If the opposite holds. in this case. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. In this case. it is said to be positively skewed.

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

13 years (SD = 1.1 Description of the Samples Age.1% 34. with a mean age of 20. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. 4.55). The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1% 536 100% 54.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .9% 14. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1 4. Then.1% 121 22. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. 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 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.4% 269 27. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.9% 23.5% 6. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1% 562 57.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.6% 15.4% 333 62.3% 8.6% 12.1).4% 146 14.5% 27. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% 57.6% 82 15.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.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. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.9% Total 441 100% 45.1. Table 4.

range from 18 to 27).43 years (SD = 1. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. In Study 3.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. with a mean age of 20. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.35. 113 . with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 19.9 per cent). Thus. In Study 1B.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. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 25). In Study 1C. with a mean age of 20.89 years (SD = 1.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. In Study 1A. In Study 2. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26).63. range from 18 to 29).5 per cent). 301 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.25 years (SD = 1.01 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. followed by Malay (27.53.

range from 23 to 73). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. SD = standard deviation 4.68 1.3% of the sample.35 1.2.3: 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 % 12.5 114 . Kuala Lumpur.3 11.5 8.63 11.1 6. Johor or Perak made up 53.9 2.65. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.4% of the sample.2: Age.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 . Table 4.89 20.3).1.7 4.43 19.2 7.25 43.01 20. 1. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.19 years (SD = 11.19 S. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. Table 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.D. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. The mean age was 43.53 1. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.

7 3.1.7 100 4.9 7.4 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.0 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2 17.9% of the sample. Table 4.6 2. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.8 5.8 11.5 1.6 100 4.4: 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. Perak or Penang made up 50.7 11.1.9 0. As the sample was 115 .5 14.6 1.1 9.0 10. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4 4.4 0.4).2 3.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.8 9.2 2.1% of the sample.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.

70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 4.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 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. 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.2. 1978). 116 . 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 4.5).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. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. 2000). In the present research. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.2 4.

786 .737 .715 .701 .714 .817 .781 .733 .754 .734 .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 .718 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .741 .Table 4.810 .783 .703 .808 .720 .740 .747 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.824 .738 .788 .727 .811 .730 .707 .904 .739 .784 .827 .720 .783 .890 .808 .782 .830 .749 .702 .740 .881 α .887 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .727 .711 .782 .756 .906 .772 α .774 .735 .910 .715 .798 .742 .

807 Study 1B .916 .800 .804 . 1985).2. and those greater than . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.804 Study 1C .857 .876 . The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.6.4. more than . Table 4.929 .80. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 1998).807 .05 indicate good fit. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. only Form A was used. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.804 . values ranging from .806 .802 4.903 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.3 Validity Test Results In the present research. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 1998). 1998). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. In Study 3. 1998.2. depending on which is used (Byrne.08 to .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. with minimal error variance caused by wording.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 .801 .80 or above). we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.808 Study 2 .803 . 118 .953 .811 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.958 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.805 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. Byrne. RMSEA values less than . 205).

freeway urgency. 4. If the value of CFI exceeds .077 .91 .097 .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 .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 .054 . Table 4.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI.000 .92 .99 .098 .00 .90.00 1.074 .98 .99 .98 1.7.00 1.00 1.96 .048 .00 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.92 1.00.061 .00 .000 .92 .00 1.00 .97 1.96 .98 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .99 .2.00 1. 1992).00 .000 .000 .96 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .96 .95 1. As shown in Table 4.97 . A third statistic.99 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. indicating good fits.98 .000 .00 1.00 (the closer to 1. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.047 .000 .3.00 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.100. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.097 .93 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 .000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.90.089 .00 1.97 1.91 . externally-focused frustration.070 .00 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit). the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.024 . and destination-activity orientation.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.

000 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).92 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 .2. verbal aggression (VER).92 .91 .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) .059 .3.083 .93 .00 .91 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than .99 .085 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .96 .081 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .93 .95 .97 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).95 .95 1.063 .052 .030 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).085 .98 .100.93 .8.096 .93 .90. indicating good fits (See Table 4.91 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).96 .93 .058 .97 .96 .3.99 .081 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. Table 4.98 .98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.091 . anger (ANG).073 .4.93 .071 .2. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.92 .96 .

CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.098 .098 .98 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .98 .090 .95 .90.98 .92 .10).93 .058 .088 .97 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).92 .97 .90.98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .070 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 . Table 4.97 . RMSEA values were less than .088 .98 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .98 .94 .92 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.94 .99 .3.95 .025 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .98 .98 .073 .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 .98 .100.96 .100.97 .2.083 .089 . derogation of others and revenge.070 .096 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.(IND). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .97 .055 .9). indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 .97 .97 .095 . Table 4.97 .047 .96 .081 .081 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . RMSEA values were less than .96 .

428) .280) .204(.099(.140) .582(.297(.280) -.962 (.226 (.107) 1.280) -.403(.351 (.037(.099) 1.064) 1.034 (.3 Normality.069) 1. In all cases.260) .146(.05).064(.280) .091) 1.140) .379(. 2005.280) ..140) .280) -. 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 1.280) .356 (.188(.560(.280) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) -.085 (.11: Normality Tests.140) .190) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.010 (.107 (.280) .085 (.280) -.246(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits. Table 4.256 (.280) .140) -.192) 1.410(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.331(.241(.099(.154(.805(.453(.106) 1.140) -.280) .409(.179(.875(.052) 1.126(.280) .082 (.140) -.192(.280) .4.140) -.140) -.183) 1.094 (.140) -.297 (.280) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) -.323 (. 1997).140) -. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.280) .085) 1.085) 1.656(.191) 1..140) .140) . Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.332 (.091(.064(.719(.280) -.140) . Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.353(.183) 1.239 (.408(.140) .278(.511(.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 .120) 1.140) .080(.920(.280) -.409(. 2006).105 (.057) 1.140) -.297(.560(.278(.280) -.091(.280) -.020 (.099) 1.126(.179(.195 (.140) -.102) 1.022 (.203(.186) 1.140) -.219 (. Table 4.

051) 1.417) -.106(.153) 983(.156(.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 .153) .267) .799(.300(.159(.064) 1.362(.138(.210) .423(.443(.435) -.219) -.277(.327 (.435) -.366(.210) .113 (.426) .128) .338 (.297 (.375) 1.640(.153) .913 (.102) .306) .359 (.959 (.007(.567(.187) 1.024 (.160 (.011 (.106(.244(.070 (.236(.210) -.048(.822 (.Table 4.417) .138) 1.978(.847 (.972(.053(.884(.392(.354 (.154) -.852(.210) .153) -.469) 1.919 (.219) .210) -.209(.135) 1.153) .153) .435) -.295(.053(.057) 1.979(.219) -.003 (.478(.360) .417) -.271(.812(.219) .370(.130(.198(.024 (.210) .719(.417) .306) -.713(.153) .214) 1.463(.210) .417) -.210) .098) 1.911 (305) 1.104) 1.147(.417) -.052) 1.324(.360) .276(.360) .279 (.084) 1.219) .417) .962 (.219) -.153) .306) -.153) .567(.153) -.414(.306) -.952(.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 1.266 (.807 (.062(.306) .259) .451(.435) -.973(306) .210) .120(.157) .321) 1.219) .153) .497(.306) .247) 1.001 (.306) -.153) .467(.100) .186(.195 (.948(.852(.088 (.805 (.540(.147(.435) .106 (.629(.099) 1.210) -.223 (.128 (.417) -.265) 1.510) 1.022 (.051) .270) 1.681(.915(.153) .417) -.098) 1.142(.101) 1.153) .006(.417) .264) .153) .052) 1.306) .210) .022 (.435) -.435) -.360) -.317) 1.247) .293 (.306) .994(.417) -.715(.110 (.940(.913(.359 (.501(.306) -.256(.219) .435) -.962(.537(.533) .306) -.417) -.030(.131(.276 (.986 (.841(.503(.366) 1.

if so.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. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. injury occurrence was much higher. column b). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. For motorcycle drivers. (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 4.12.3 per cent being hospitalised. with 44.12: 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. column c). 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).13). However.4.12. 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. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.12. 124 .

13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

05). externally-focused frustration. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. 126 . Table 4.4.05). All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.15 shows means. Study 1C.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. in Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. 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.17 shows means. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. crash occurrence and crash injury.16 shows means. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Also. 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.05). BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).5 4. Table 4. and destination-activity orientation. All these correlations were significant (p<. However. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. freeway urgency.5. 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. Study 1B. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.

15: Means.155** .5 5.942** 1 .482** .345** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .553** -.340** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .376** .44 4.749** .544** -.566** 1 -.52 34.78 .036 .3455 .57 4.D.88 7.342** -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.716** .22 3. 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.191** .516** 1 -.00 165.818** 1 .129* .58 .201** .388** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .96 19.316** .23 2.246** .625** .08 2.434** .339** .04 26.391** -.280** .278** .662** 1 .381** .471** .45 6.147* .562** -.804** .97 43.247** .405** .435** .376** .371** .152** .476 .513** .239** .442 1 -.901** .69 24.027 1 .76 3.231** .533** .147* -.Table 4.186** .202** .416** 1 .218** .2691 6.396** .211** .64 7.306** .209** 1 .

491** .403** .842** 1 .964** 1 .341** .816** .254** .763** .491** .97 4 4.342** .401** .445** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .463** .84 5.540** .515** .496** .173* .310** .172** .380** .279** .162** .48 3.337** .434** .089 -.688**. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.358** .150** .312** 1 -.324** .520** .91 15 27.157** .051 .85 9.200** .14 4.039 .003 .254** .275** .353** .366** .461** .41 3.067 -.334** .489**.Table 4.602** 1 .00 14 19.369** .355** .286* .16: Means.213** .236** .343** .531** .86 6.430** .84 7.542** .380** .816** .013 1 .82 7 13.452** .294** 1 .028 .272** .355** .298** .213** .254** .407** 1 -.9 12 71.335** .347** 1 -.331** .523** .240** .56 2 4.580** 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 .372** .48 5.69 8.382** 1 -.550** .448** .159 -.443** .363** .444** .438** 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.509** .22 4.50 5.516** .45 5 87.393** .147** .440**.584** -.53 19.099 .319** .462** .331** .355** .60 10 16.521** .140* .25 8 18.411** .921** .386** .338** .847** .9 28.D.195** .9 13 46.418** .028 -.66 3.587** 1 -.176* .481** .167** .855** .555** .586** .153** .148* .414** .514** .06 3 2.3079 .5 6 17.5695 .172** .178** .343** .505** .518** .762** .697** 1 .731** .400** .55 9 21.268** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .103 -.103 -.4960 17 .408** .376** .779** 1 -.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.276** .271** .071 .213** .669** 1 -.43 12.278** 1 -.4624 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .378** .225** .

209** .167** .456** .64 -.057 .508** .183** .530** .343** .241** .308** .226** .18 -.281** .230 .838** .484** .227** .151* .292** .314** .355** .259** .264** .038 .85 19.534** 1 18 19.277** .218** .075 .-181** .235** .252** .270** .109 .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .254** .516 .302** .313** .368** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .745** 1 7 13.095 .137* .448** .250** .103** .254** .588** 1 14 20.481** .003 .296** .9 -.291** .293** .310** .03 -.222** .202** .36 -.367** .203** .506** .245** .428** .311** .565** .271** .7 28.296** .181** .422** 1 9 22.70 3.454** .404** .251** .230** .130** .221** .377** .298** .189** .150* .97 -.229** .162**.385** .340** .392** .199**.278** .91 -.183** .292** .526** .174** .349** 1 16 67.219** .186** .03 5.148** .11 12.288** .110 .216** .81 5.446** .52 7.17 -.306** .641** 1 4 4.895** 1 13 26.387** .320** .305** .268**. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.31 -.296** .465** .277** 1 8 19.191** .235** .D.725** .338** .076 .230** .212** .378** .304** .89 5.502** .80 17.189** .246** .364**.051 .518** .70 8.735** .166** .106 .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 .016 .348** 1 6 16.17: Means.120 .131* .166** .402** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.304** .749** .191** 1 3 .545** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .183** .615** .37 6.158** .109 .69 -.139** .78 8.192**.370** .265** 1 19 25.856** 1 17 43.178** .00 -.531** 1 10 16.67 7.228** .324** .86 -.38 5.476** .356** .862** .501 .033 .275** .31 3.343** .193**.199** .151* .592** .81 -.05 -.98 4.101**.401** .364** .081 .069 .119* 1 21 .423** .434** .390** .17 -.221** .275** .49 6.323** .277**.286** .8 -.228** .483** .354** 1 5 88.263** .424** 1 12 18.278** .395** 1 11 65.373** .185** .307**.241** .150* .366** .196** .422 -.259** .082 .342** .141* .261** .192** .58 9.345** .412** .095 .357** .210**.379** .306** .258** .402** .202** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.383** .224** .Table 4.210** .451** .224**.42 3.9 -.804** .270** .70 1 2 4.747** .281** .7 -.294** .413** .

all BIT subscales. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. 130 . 1B and 1C. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. Similar to observed results in study 1A. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 4.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. freeway urgency. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. However. and destination-activity orientation. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.5. externally-focused frustration.18 shows means.

758** 1 .48 5.D.880 .314** .76 48.383** .876** .081 8.485 11.55 175.139 .415** .290** .371** -.374** .291** .035 3.06 20.212* .66 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.367** .500** .122 7.428** .325** .917 3.535** 1 .264** .30 .028 1 .251** .072 .226** .259** .167 .50 73.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .192* -.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .043 .614** .233** .580** 1 .317** .232** .356** .323 23.413** 1 .025 -.409** .18: Means.165 .201* .269** .183* 1 .219** .Table 4.4683 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .14 27.621 3.182* -. 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.750** .6803 .630** .111 -.179 7.5738 8.941** 1 .150 -.413** .376** .66 5.349** .200* -.418** .240** .562** 1 .313** 1 .4966 1 .334** .

3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 1C and 2. In this study. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In general.19 shows means.4. As indicated in Table 4.19. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. However. correlations between I and distal. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 1B.5. 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. 132 . Differing from Studies 1A.

106 .235** .4 5.65 75.167** .261** .028 .275** .194* 1 .373** .82 5.040 .070 -.173* .749** .048 .091 .07 8.120 .235** .286* 1 .454** .180** .54 11.636** .109 -.067 .103 .020 .166 . 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 12.35 11.3 6.88 1 .156 .45 19.222* .06 2.263** .200* .245** .095 .443** 1 .240** .172** .618** 1 .236** .213** .152 .165 .218* .32 3.030 .Table 4.225** .99 10.147** .117 .521** .2000 .117 .05 3.528** 1 .023 .324** .404 .17 20.240** .071 .061 .289** 1 .060 -.82 11.112 -.31 8.013 .178** .197* .018 -.0301 .864** 1 .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .19: Means.213** .194* .156 .032 1 .12 4.418** .643** .128 .872** .853** .371** .151 -.021 1 * Correlation is significant at .08 15.171 .658** .039 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .121 .023 -.255** .121 .622** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.721** .51 3.141 .292** .114 .378** 1 .072 -.161 -.182* -.588** 1 .060 .338** 1 .401** -.153** 1 .177 1 .229** .11 15.149 .246** .268** .561** 1 .091 -.204* .234** .150** .072 .271** .84 2.D.15 32.254** -.646** .10 1.604** .32 7.74 15.13 3.149 .576** .148* .092** .276** .42 66.43 8.116 .117 .025 -.257** .816** .054 .193* -.807** .

063.229.146. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. Study 1C: B=.01 Study 1C B=. p<.095. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.1.048. For the destination-activity factor. p<. p<. p<.1.172.01 Study 1B B=. p<. p<.088 p<.01). p<. p<.01 B=.1 through H1.01 B=. Table 4. 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=.01. p<.095. p<. 4.090.4. These results supported H1. and externally-focused frustration. These results supported H1.01.01 B=.278. p<.01 B=.120.1. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=.01 and Study 3: B=. p<.135.238. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.034.01 B=. p<.315. freeway urgency.20).3 inclusive.01 B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<. p<.063.102.01 B=.4 was not supported.202.01.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.117.04.1.01 B=.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation. p<.1). p<.01 134 .125.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.01 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. Study 2: B=. p<.6. p<.080.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=. H1.180.041.

069.075 p<.2.095.038.059.01 B=. These results supported H1. respectively). p<.05 Study 1B B=.158. freeway urgency.24.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.21). p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.087. p<.22. p<. p<.6.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.019.01 and Study 2: B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=.01 B=. p<.033 p<. Study 1C: B=.01.140.01).01 B=. 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=. p<.01 B=. Table 4.01 B=.091.120.2 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. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. 135 .23 and Table 4. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.165.074. p<. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.118. p<. p<.035. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01. p<. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. Table 4. p<. p<.054.01 B=.035. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 B=.064.

52 25.64 27.35 4.15 161.Table 4.98 33.77 8.32 147.31 161.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181. * p<.43 20.600** Table 4.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.16 3.89 21.82 168.25 25.03 25.35 155.35 33.98 171.88 28.44 178.184** 136 .77 165.92 157. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.60 185.22: 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<.06 19.64 26.56 175.30 22.73 170.05.32 28.48 171.29 21.01.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.23: 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<.25 5.68 26.50 28.82 33.41 167.35 24.

Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05). In Study 1B.53 17.25). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01).39 19.88 167. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.01. In Study 2.61 165.81 167.05).06 160.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. 137 .01).12 161. On the other hand.52 3. * p<.05.29 15.01 14.01). 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<.06 8.12 154. 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<.73 157.01).05).060** In Study 1A. and those who almost never travelled (p<.14 15.Table 4. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. about once every two weeks (p<.00 14.00 16.01). In Study 1C.73 24.77 16.24: 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<.

it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. However. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.63 1.71 168.01.S. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.58 188.81 161.64 24.528** In Study 3.09 15. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.55 10.S) Therefore.01.381 10.25: 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<.Table 4.82 162. * p<.47 5.65 73.31 78.31 2.89 20. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. Table 4.60 72.50 184.55 73.05.920 (N.97 8.94 20.S.81 175.437 (N.26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Variable Driver Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Taxicab Driving Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Note: ** p<. However.27 14.26).81 22.56 3. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 . It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.316 1.68 20.859 11.50 24.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.753* 38 48 27 20 77.37 9.74 77. 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. In other words. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.52 172.62 10.80 22.26 10.33 78. * p<.05. N.

only H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 1B. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. however. 139 .2.2. In Study 2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. Contrary to the subhypothesis. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. ethnicity and age – were investigated. Again. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. In Study 3. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 1B. only H2.1 was confirmed.been predicted by H2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. though.27).6. 4. In this case. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. ANOVA results for age. 1C and 2. the lower was the total BIT score.1 and H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. For ethnicity. In Studies 1A.

Note: Not significant In Study 1A. N. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. however. H3. In Study 1B.81.05).S.05). 4.1 and H3.01 F=9. p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. Therefore. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. Study 1C t=3.2 were confirmed.00. p<. In Study 1B.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. p<.01 F=8.2 was confirmed. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. Externality-Chance (C).62. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.68.01 F=2.44.74.01 F=1. Study 2 t=3.6.S.562. H3. t(250) = 2. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.05 F=11.05 F=4.01 F=19. p<. p<. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In all studies. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. male 140 .99. p<. 1C and Study 2.56.Table 4.12. In Study 3.S. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.05.66. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=.53. In Study 1A and Study 2. N.01 F=1. N.01). p<.9.3 was not supported. N.S.98. In Study 1C. p<.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. N. p<. Study 1B t=2.05.

F(2. In Study 2. p<. p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. p<. 119) = 5. t(299) = 2. 298) = 3. 298) = 6. p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 respectively.503. F(2. F(2. In Study 1A. In Study 1B. 299) = 5. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05 and F(2.05 respectively. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.01 respectively).01). 1B.566. In Study 1C.05 and p<.05 respectively.476.041. p<. 1C.05). 249) = 3. E and P scores. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.527.05). p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.05 and F(2. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. 299) = 3.05. 298) = 3.01).941. F(2. t(120) = 2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.05. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. F(2.462. For Studies 1A.490. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.370. 141 . p<.

ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.Therefore. that age influences hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. H4. In addition. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.2 and H4. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.3 was supported. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.1. H4. were supported.3.3 were supported.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.01).1. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.2.2.3 were not supported. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.079. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. t(120) = 2.1.05. H4. 142 .2. in Study 2. Therefore. so H4. H5. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. However.2.1 and H5. 1B or 1C. H5.3.6.3. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. H4. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. 4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.2 and H4. In Study 1. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.

it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. 4. H6.290.341. p<. was not supported.254. p<.312.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.1.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.254.354.28).01 respectively). 143 .01 and B = .01.371. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<.01.01 and B = .3. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and B = . H6. p<.2 and H6. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. In Study 2.2 and H6. respectively).3. were supported. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. Therefore. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. In Study 1B. p<.6. p<. 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. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.342.239. In Study 1C. were supported. respectively). p<.01.186.4. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. respectively).1.306. H6. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. H6. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 and (B = . p<.

Table 4. N.01). that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<. H7. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.288.141.01 B=. p<.191. p<.151. In Study 1B.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=.05).01 B=. freeway urgency (B = .415.05 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. p<. p<. 1C and 2. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. the higher the hopelessness scores.254. p<.153. p<.157.01).01).05). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .232.05 In Study 1A.01 Study 1B B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .S.247.275. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .247.01 B=. p<.099. p<.232. the higher the hopelessness scores. 144 .05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=. p<.01 B=.05).287.01 B=.3 and H7. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.01).05) but not for freeway urgency.418. p<. p<.349. In Study 2.317. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .415.317.01). externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.01).2. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.05 Study 2 B=. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. was supported in Studies 1A.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .280. p<.287. p<. B=. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. H7. p<.01 B=.151.4.349. p<.05 Study 1C B=. p<.1. p<.01). p<.278. p<. H7. Therefore. In Study 1C.157. externally-focused frustration (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .254. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.191.05 B=.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .151. freeway urgency (B =. p<.141.275.280.200. p<.153. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<.151.

229.01 B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. that the higher the subscale score for I. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2 and H8.297. p<. N. p<.1.625.178. H8.01 B=. With regard to H8. but not H8. p<. N. p<.S.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.1 and H8.315. N.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. 145 . that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.1. H8.2. p<.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.29).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=-.01 B=-.01 B=.01 B=-. the lower were mean total BIT scores. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. H8.753.4. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.05 B=. Table 4.01 B=.168.388.3. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.1. p<.3. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=. p<.2.208. provided support for hypothesis H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. B=.01 B=-.339.01 B=.S.006.01 B=. p<.01 B=-. B=.6.239. 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. p<.336. With regard to H8. p<.044.077. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<. Therefore.

581.01 respectively (see Figure 4. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. F=4.1).1).2).1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.710.01 (see Figure 4. =8. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. p<. Further.272.909. 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. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.01 (see Figure 4.05.704. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. F=4. 146 . p<. In Study 1C. p<. 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.01 and F=8. F=7.

537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. R2=.00 MalaysianIndian 70.444.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.034. 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<. in Study 2. 1B and 1C. 147 .Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.327.00 64. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. However. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. multiple regression showed mixed results.05.00 66.00 68.6. First. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 62. Kurtosis=-.3).05.282. B = .033. p<.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. F=4.

371). p<.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.459. p<.01. Kurtosis=-. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.608.463.01. B = .070.3: 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=. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.4).167. F=18.4: 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. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.

N. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<. Table 4. and H9.032.S t=2.820. N. F(2. p<.01 (see table 4. N.690.30).603.01 t=2. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.480.164. 249) = 5. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .05 Study 1C t=2. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.01 t=4.01 t=2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.6. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. p<. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.Therefore.05 t=4. 1C and 3. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. were supported.S. However. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<.2. 4.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.01. p<.677.603. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. With motorcycle drivers. In both studies. p<.05 t=.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.521.1.298. and t(250) = 2.31).690.01 t=-.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=2.780.05 respectively.S t=2. t= . p<. the H9. In Study 1C. N.S t=1.210. p<.467. t(300) = 2.187. In Study 1B and Study 3. however.

F=1. N.526.S.01 F=. p<.S.S. N.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. 249) = 10.01).155. F=4.077. N. 299) = 4. F=2. In Study 1C. N.629. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S.01. F=1.01). p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.S. N.804. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.05 Study 1C F=5.S. F=5. N.S.S.432.041.01 F=2.422.S F=10.01).182. N.904. 299) = 5. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. N.564. p<. F=. 150 . p<.561. F=2. 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. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. N. mixed results were found. F(2.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. F=1.041.S.S.763.05. F=2. N.01. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.521. N.632. F(2.567. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 3. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S. N.432.01). mean IND scores of Malay.021. F(2. N. F=2. p<. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.398.01 Study 3 F=1. p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. N. F=1.S. Table 4.S.57.

2. VER and IND subscale scores. was supported. 4.3 and H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. 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. freeway urgency. 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.3 and H11.4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. In Study 3.1.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. were all supported. were supported. The higher the total aggression scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.29).2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.32). 151 . freeway urgency.Therefore. respectively. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. In Studies 1B and 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. Therefore. H10.6. H10. H11. however. H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. only H11.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. However. H11. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.

01 B=.01 respectively.01 B=.01 and B = .520.483.505.048.05 B=. respectively. p<.263.385. p<.121.S. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. B = .01 Study 1C B=. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. the higher were total BIT scores.01.5).01. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.491. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01. B = . However. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01. B = . their total BIT scores tend to be higher. and B = . p<.438. p<. B = .32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. B = .01 B=. Study 1C and Study 3.Table 4.324.01 B=.01 B=.881.380. p<. 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. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. Study 2 and Study 3.01. Also.545. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01 B=.01 and B = . p<.235. p<. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. N.216. p<. B=.01 Study 3 B=.204. but not in Study 3. p<. respectively.183. 1C.263.428. p<. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<.461. N.565. p<.05 B=.370. but not in Study 3. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. p<.387.229.01 B=. p<. B = . 1B. p<.01 B=.05 (see Figure 4. p<.01 B=.540.S. Similarly. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<.370. p<.01. p<.01 respectively. and B = . F=3. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .

01.00 42.961.12.003. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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. Study 1C and Study 3.00 IndianMalaysian 48. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . p<.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. Kurtosis=-.297.100.01. p<.362.645. p<.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. R2=.929. respectively.00 46. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. R2=. R2=.6. The moderating effect of I was significant.271. B=-.516. Kurtosis=-. for Study 1B. B=-.6.01.076.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. In other words.00 44. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.01. p<.131. and B=-. F=100.172.316. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.05. p<.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. F=81.

R2=.117. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.369.6.271. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. Kurtosis=. R2=. F=78.01. R2=. Kurtosis=-.01 respectively. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. B = . R2=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. p<.387. F=94. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .015.606. R2=.088. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.297. p<.6).01 and B = .794.757. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.360.507.297. p<. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.694. F=71. R2=. In Study 1B. respectively).897.431. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.704.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. Kurtosis=. 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=.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. F=91.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.01.01. respectively).12. Kurtosis=-.069.271.109.01.

01 and B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.2. H12. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. p<. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Therefore. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.7).302.significant. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . and the moderation effect was not significant. and H12.332.1. p<. that the internality. H12.01 respectively. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions. B = .3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.

263. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. t(249)=2. 249) = 4. 4. However.885. F(2. Only H12. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.3.01 but not on about the derogation of others.05. t(250) = 3. p<.343.279.01. 249) = 5. p<.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.6. H122 and H12. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.1. Also. 156 .01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.05). No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. p<. p<. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.01).dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.01. and about revenge F(2.05. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. 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<. p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers.737.05). that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. 248) = 3. p<.314.

it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.192. p<.6. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. p<.379.224. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. externally-focused frustration.364. p<. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.01 and B = . p<. B = . B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. on total BIT score were also tested. H13.01.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01.1. the higher were total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. 4. This means that. p<. B = . was not supported.277. p<. H13. p<. This means that. H14. 157 .01 and destination-activity orientation. Therefore.2 and H14. freeway urgency. p<. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. were supported. H14. was partially supported.3.01. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.394. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.2.01. B = . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. (that thoughts about physical aggression.413. B = . the higher the total HAT scores. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.01.3.01. respectively. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. was supported. were supported.1 and H13.307. B = .Therefore.

8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Kurtosis=. p<.6. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.8). and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .05.565.4. B = . Kurtosis=.013.01. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.809.-554. F=57.072).297.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.002. 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 4.085). In other words. F=55. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.911.188. 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. p<.01. p<.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. Physical Aggression and Revenge. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.

H15.297. R2=.294.Aggression was significant. F=59.01.01.1 and H15. p<. B = .33).16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.207. p<. 159 . that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.246.475.01.3.2. Kurtosis=. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<. was supported. B = . that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. was not supported. 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. However. Therefore.092).026. were supported. H15.

1. S N.S S S S S N.1.S P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S 1C P.1.S N.S S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S S S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 160 .S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S 3 P.S P.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S S S S P.1.S S S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.Table 4.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.2.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.2.S N.S.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.S S S S S S N.S N.S S N.1.S P.S N.S N.S P.2.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S N.S N.2.S S S S S N.S S P.1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.3.

S N.3.S P.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 S S N.S 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 H7.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S S S N.S P.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S P. blank=Not Applicable N.S P.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S P.3.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S P.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S= Not Supported.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6. P.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.S S S S S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S S S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.S S N.S= Partially Supported.S 2 N.Table 4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S S S S S S S S P.S 3 N.S N.S N. N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S 161 .S N.S 1B N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.

3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S N.S P. P.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S= Partially Supported.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 N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S= Not Supported.S 162 .1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S S N.S S 2 3 P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S S S S P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.Table 4.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.

93 .093 .58 35. F2. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index.93 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F4 F1. AQ. F4 F1. F3. P. C. P.80 104.7 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 8.97 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.087 . Externality Powerful-Other (P). Table 4. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.93 . 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.102 .00000 .00000 . Study 2: motorcycle driver. F3.05522 . Hopelessness (BHS). e. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).060 Note: Internality (I). This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.97 63. AQ I. Hopelessness. Aggression (AQ). F2. AQ. BHS I.90 110.96 RMSEA . F4 χ2 49. P.00126 . P. two were worthy of further examination. C.4.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. HAT Proximal Factors F1.38 100. BHS. BHS. P I. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). freeway urgency (F2).f.045 .00111 . F3. F2.02 d.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. HAT I. C. freeway urgency.g. F2. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. C. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F4 F1. F4 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.96 .068 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. 4. 163 . C. F3. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. C. F3. 2002).7. (2) usurpation of right-of-way.34. HAT I. Externality Chance (C). F3 F1. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. AQ.00000 . F2. P.

98).42.91.29 and .10). For Model C5. RMSEA=. . with path coefficients = -. AGFI=.043. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. which are detailed in sect. values were: NFI=. Externality (Chance). For Model C6.97.22 respectively (see Figure 4. ECVI=. GFI=.26. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.32.26.97. of the BIT score.=24.28 and .92) on accident involvement.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. To aid this discussion. GFI=. . d.5. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.97. An alternate model.destination-activity orientation (F4). and PGFI=. For Model C6. C6. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.92) on accident involvement.48.23 respectively (see Figure 4. For Model C5. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.13. Externality (Powerful-Other). AGFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. . Externality (Chance).=33. .35. CFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. but not as good as for C5. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. RMSEA=. 5. .96.f. RMR=.045. RMR=. Externality (Powerful-Other). goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.51 and PGFI=.f. d. 164 .043. with path coefficients = -.3.02. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. . subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.10). ECVI=.94.42.14. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. CFI=.96.060. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.

005522 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<.045 RMR=.58* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.29* Aggression (AQ) .92* Accident Involvement .51* .97 d.32* Externality (Chance) .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.99 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .57* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .f =24 CFI=.97 GFI=.63* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .79* .

92* Accident Involvement .060 RMR=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .63* .58* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.77* .02 GFI=.98 P-value = .39* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.56* .f =33 CFI=.31* Externality (Chance) .29* Aggression (AQ) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.96 d.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .50* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.

41 d.41.93 . ANG. Indirect aggression (IND).66).f.80) on the accident involvement. F3.00000 . F3.081 . d.084 . HOS. F2. Angry (ANG). F4 χ2 108. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. IND. HAT-P. HAT-P.00000 .In addition. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. CFI=. freeway urgency (F2).078.91 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). RMSEA=.00000 .f.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. path coefficients = . VER.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.10. ANG. HOS. 167 . F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.00000 GFI RMSEA . HOS. Verbal aggression (VER). HAT-P. F2. F3 F1.91 . It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT). HAT-P.66 153.65 and . IND. HAT-D. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). ANG. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). VER.13 respectively. HAT-D. Aggression (AQ). Hostility (HOS).94 169. HOS. F2.73 169.35).084 . IND.91 . HAT-R PHY. ANG. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F2. GFI=.91. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). ANG.66 131.080 .=61. HAT-R PHY. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HAT-D. VER.00111 . F4 F1. F2. F3. F4 F1.95). HAT-R PHY. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.92 . 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-D. HOS. IND. IND PHY.

BIT2=Freeway Urgency.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.66* .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.62* .000 N=252 RMSEA=.69* Anger . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.58* .f =61 CFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .41 GFI=.80* Accident Involvement .05 .29* Hostility . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.83* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 . *p<.078 RMR=.72* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .95 P-value = .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .91 d.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .65* .63* Indirect Aggression .61* .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.

36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. Externality Chance (C). C. F3.f.12. BHS F1. F3. GFI=.17631 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.36).062 Note: Internality (I). The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.12).98). C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29. F2. F4 F1. RMSEA=. F4 39.66) on the accident involvement. P I. freeway urgency (F2).12 d. d.058 .047 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P.047. 169 .4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.7. P. F2.2 Study 2 In Study 2. path coefficients = -. CFI=. the participants were motorcycle drivers. p-value GFI RMSEA I.80 respectively (see Figure 4.94 . C.07580 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.86 23 28 23 .=28.f.95 . BHS I. F3 F1.06722 .65 and .94 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).94. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.33 33. Hopelessness (BHS). F2.

89* .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* Externality (Chance) .70* BIT4 .f =23 CFI=.12 GFI=.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . *p<.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .95 d.57* Internality -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.88* Crash Occurrence .99 P-value = .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.83* BIT3 .78* .047 RMR=.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .

F3. F2.39 21 .35265 .97 .f.22 23 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. 171 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.06743 . F3.40) on the accident involvement.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.93 . Hopelessness (H). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).94 . P.82 28 . F4 50.4. GFI=. C.061.20 respectively (see Figure 4. but not Externality.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).=21.59 17 . p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F3.027 I. d. C. C.95.7. Internality and AQ. AQ F1.37). AQ F1. F2.3 Study 3 In Study 3. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. 37.95 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31. I. path coefficients = -. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.20 and .39. Externality Chance (ExC). F2.061 Note: Internality (I). C.079 Injury Occurrence I. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. P Proximal Factors F1. F2. F3.13). AQ F1.f.03084 .00524 .95). freeway urgency (F2). the participants were taxi drivers. P. RMSEA=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. CFI=.

13 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* BIT3 .61* BIT4 .95 P-value = .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.39* Internality -.74* -.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .f =21 CFI=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.061 RMR=. *p<.39 GFI=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Externality (Chance) .

consistent with path analysis results. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 173 . 4. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 2 and 3 are satisfied.8.4. Therefore. Table 4.8.38). and. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.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. 4.39). 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.

behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.40: 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 4.40). Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. in Studies 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.8. Table 4. 1B and 1C.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. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.8.41). where the 174 .4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.

BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes.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 .mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes. Table 4.

With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.993. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. p <.426. Study 2: t(421)= -3. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.665. p <. p <.663.01.837. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.162. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 2: t(372)= -3. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.05.9. Study 1A vs.442. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.01. p <. Study 1A vs.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 1B vs. Study 1B vs.Table 4. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1C vs. 176 . Study 2: t(422)= 8.01.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -4. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Study 1A vs.01. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.01.

t(986)= 30.577. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.211.01. p <. p <. p <. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.977. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6.837. p <.01.861. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.775. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 1B vs.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -8. p <. 4. p <.01. t(986)= 5. 177 . t(986)= 3.01.614. t(253)= 8. t(986)= 37. and to injury occurrence.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Study 2: t(372)= -6. p <. p <.01.01.186.200. t(986)= 34. t(986)= 6. Study 1A vs. p <. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. t(253) = 2. t(986)= 7.687.484.801. Study 1A vs. Also. Study 2: t(421)= -7.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. p <. p <.01.01.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4.433. p <.01.926.01.747. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.01.261. “freeway urgency”. Study 1C vs. p <.01.01. Study 1B vs. p <.402. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -7. 4.704.9.9. Study 1A vs.01. and t(986)= 35. p <. respectively.

p <. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. 178 .737. p <. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 11.01. p <.01. t(253)= 35. t(253)= 39. “freeway urgency”.01and to injury occurrence. t(253)= 31. and t(253)= 37. Also. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. respectively. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.01.946. p <.016.977.982. t(253)= 8.01.567.881.01.01.

In an earlier study. Evans. 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. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. upon examination. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Elander et..2. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. 2. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 1993. Elander et al. 2002b). in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. multi-factorial perspective. They found gender.4.1). freeway urgency. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Often. al. (1993). The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. 1995. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . including gender. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. 1991). Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists.

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

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

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

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

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

181

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

5.2

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

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

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

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

182

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

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

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

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

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

184

5.3 5.3.1

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

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

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

185

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

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

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

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

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

186

20.1 months. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. respectively). affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. SD=. Inclán. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. They were also more experienced (266. Of course. there are other possible influences. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. For taxicab drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=11.hierarchy. as well.25 years. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.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 appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones.01years. SD=1.63. SD=1. and 36. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. Because of occupational demands. SD=22.3.53.16. By virtue of their age and occupation.1. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. SD=131.6 months as licensed drivers.5. In the present study. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. respectively).7 months. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. 5. For taxicab drivers.2 years. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.

2003. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. Devashayam. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. were necessary to succeed. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. The finding that Indian- 188 . to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. financial matters and social affiliations are made. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. along with selfpromotion skills. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. influence peddling and status-related privileges. corrupt practices. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. In an environment where career choice. rife with bureaucracy. spousal selection.drivers were significantly less internally controlled than Malay and Malaysian-Chinese drivers but scored higher than the other groups on both externality dimensions (chance and powerful others). 2005). when compared to Canadian students. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Carment (1974) also found. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. however. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. perhaps due as argued earlier. 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.7 in 1996. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . Again.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. 5. 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. Nandy. 2002. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.5% annually from 9. 1999. but two possible influences stand out. where Cheung et al. and.8 million in 1996. 1966. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.3. 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. including locus of control.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Gomez. Salih &Young. as a result. 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. as a group. by extension. 1981). 1999. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Indeed. Sendut. 1998. an internal locus of control. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 1999). the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007).5 million in 1991 to 11. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.

aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 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. 2002). including perhaps attributions about the control of events. King & Parker. 2001) In the present research. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 .4 Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. 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. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2003. Oetting & Salvatore. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 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. 2002. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 5. 2001. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Consistently. Nonetheless. 318). more recently. Clayton. Miles & Johnson. 2000. bringing them closer together in outlook.women’s friendship patterns. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. Huff. Lynch. Jenkins. Lawton & Nutter. Parkinson. 2008. Miller & Rodgers. Dukes.

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

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. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. in the samples studied here. the world and others). but not when they involved the derogation of others. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).strongly. 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. The effects of aggression on behaviour. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic.. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 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 . as well. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. Such responses. 2006). That is. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 1997). In essence. however. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. although still significantly.

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

hostile automatic thoughts. 2000. Dien. Making sense of. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 1997). MartinLoeches.Robbins. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 5. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 1993). As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Carretie. In fact. Hinojosa. 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. 162). 2002. 1996. p. 2004.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Martin. Taylor & Fragopanagos. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. aggressive emotionality. 1999. and attempting to exercise control over. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Performance (e. 2002.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 2000. Trabasso & Liwag. 2005). Tomkins. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Lambie & Marcel. Stein.5. Mercado & Tapia.. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.g. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Watson & Wan. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.

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

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

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

“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. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.1. 4. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible.3). There is some support for this position in the literature. Thus. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. However.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. 1C5 and 1C6.10) excluded the fourth factor. More importantly. two structural equation models. as suggested by Byrne (2001). 158). Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. In some cases. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. In the case at hand. stating that.soundness. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. 88). Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. destination-activity orientation. and practical considerations (p. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.7. statistical.

499 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.060 0.97 0.97 0.909 0.034 97.96 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.91 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.043 129. P. C.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.02 0.97 0. F2. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. F2.02 0.99 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.42 11.97 1. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. AQ. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. P.02 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 0. C. 199 . Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.48 30.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.96 1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.98 0.Table 5. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.045 0.94 0. AQ. Injury Occurrence 35. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.

et al. Reason. For practical reasons. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Parker. Manstead & Stradling.48. 2006). By selecting Model 1C5.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 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. 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. while for Model 1C6. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Schwebel. based on the notion that each variable included may. Kayumov. Hair et al. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. they should be dropped. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Nahn & Shapiro.. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. in this analysis. 1995. 2006. but still acceptable.42. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. 1990. goodness-of-fit. farther along.1). in particular. However. 200 . 1996). (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Storey. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. it is 0.

externalitychance. . Evans.45).28 and .18) and injury occurrence (r = -. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.26. externality-chance. externally-focused frustration. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 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. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . Distal factors (locus of control: internality. 2001.5.g. . .5.29). Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Rothengatter.21).35.66).5.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .35 and . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.28 respectively).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. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. 1991. The results suggested that the alternative model. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. crash occurrence (r = -.4.34) and injury occurrence (r = .14.1). on crash outcomes. for automobile drivers sampled. Sümer. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other. freeway urgency. with five distal factors (internality. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . externality-powerful other. and hostile automatic thoughts). 2003).6. aggression. In Study 1C. via BIT.

with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.4.41).55). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. externality-chance. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5. which sampled motorcyclists.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.20) and injury occurrence (r = . had a better fit than other alternative models. Aggression.23) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. crash occurrence (r = .80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . 5. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). crash occurrence (r = .24). freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. Results indicated that the first alternative model. on the other hand. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externally-focused frustration. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.65 and . 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. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.25). 202 . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.

4. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. externality-chance. Finally.6. in turn and indirectly.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. However. externally-focused frustration. with the sample of taxicab drivers. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. freeway urgency. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. Distal factors. externality-powerful other. had no significant effect on BIT scores. For motorcyclists. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. to measure outcome. their crash occurrence. had a better fit than alternative models. crash occurrence. freeway urgency. 5. such as internality. externality-chance.5. with four distal factors (internality. aggression).5. via BIT. hopelessness. crash occurrence.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model.20 and . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. for the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-powerful other and aggression). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. as a result. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. 203 .3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. for crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.3). This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. externally-focused frustration. Results indicated that the third alternative model. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.5. 4.

by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 2005. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. a total of five samples were taken. Sekaran (2003) points out. 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. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. chosen at random from taxi stands. however.6 5. 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.5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 2004).6.1 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. 278279). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. To a large extent. 204 . With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 2005). Huguenin. Further. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. In the present research. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.

to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. 205 . Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.6%. with a mean age of 20. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Since.6% (Study 1A: 99. Study 1C: 99. in Malaysia. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. as elsewhere. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia.2%). individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident.31. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. The most populous state. 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. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.2% and Study 2: 99.2). With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Selangor. Study 1B: 100%. Table 5.55). it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Sabah. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.13 years (SD = 1.In Malaysia. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.

Table 5.807 733.8 (6) 6. 206 .2 3.887.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.8 6.5 (4) 4.000 3.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.2 (13) 11.000 2.6 5.3 (12) 11.286 1. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 Per cent of national population 26.500 1.1 (7) 8.004. In both cases. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 2.6 6.000 2.0 4. in this case. For that reason.2 (1) 3.6 (10) 7. Not all states have the same number of drivers.674 1.9 (3) 2. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.188 1.Table 5.9 (9) 7.4 5.396.5 (8) 3.200. Table 5.300.2 7.000 215.9 9.150.000 1.2 (11) 12.880 3.000 1.503.260.7 (2) 2.0 8.7 (14) But.576 2.2 11.2 (5) 0.6 0.387.818.2: 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) 7.100. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.500. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.0 12.

75 4.064 9.635 1.16 2.76 3.27 14.041 92.785 393.55 7.34 11.98 0.104 6.22 17.93 9.88 3.50 29.003 10.198 156.600 135.70 12.37 3.45 9.19 4.90 5.19 3.84 11.428.85 1.97 12.36 8.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.561 1.606 24.467 25.24 0.212 39.70 3.026 10.490 525.19 7.496 187.137 698.89 3.735 165.20 12.768 6.920 181.35 4.093 5.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.96 3.Table 5.029 273.13 6.88 2.28 3.4 4.43 2.05 2.774 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 12.144 12.251 324.63 207 .24 2.617 10.230 266.725 70.588.93 0.46 8.34 3.68 7.92 25.91 2.163 10.170 13.

722 255.958 % 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 12.64 1.38 0.64 2.46 14.35 4.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.33 4.79 13.48 1.76 3.15 5.Table 5.656 821.144 12.92 25.133 705.14 7.679 90.725 70.49 0.63 13.43 2.026 10.606 24.221 36.98 0.88 2.10 9.283 770.104 6.305 276.029 273.36 8.88 3.615.93 9.46 5.02 7.28 3.170 13.45 2.37 3.93 7.74 208 .768 6.112 347.27 14.59 1.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.38 4.212 39.59 12.63 11.995 233.992 776.75 5.66 11.003 10.03 4.49 12.288 444.82 9.22 3.20 15.467 25.4 4.989 6.727 161.561 1.064 9.617 10.02 10.856 310.

3 and 5. Of course. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. it is possible to say that sampling. Table 5. 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) . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. it can be argued that they were.Table 5. participants came from – or.814** 1 . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .903** .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. at least.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . was representative of a high risk driver population. 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. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.824** . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .4.

The problem.g.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons.. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. violations and accidents should be linked together. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Hatakka. e. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Much important data is available in official statistics. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. as in other psychological research. attitudinal factors. accidents. however. unless the variation within the group is very small. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Rothengatter. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . Again. 1979). 1998. 2001). Keskinen.6. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. the data has to be disaggregated. in studying driving behaviour. However. accident distributions by age. demographic factors. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. 296). 5.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). 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. Exposure. Elander et al. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. 1998.

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

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

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

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

1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs.studies undertaken.7 5. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 1994). collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. 1985. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.g. Good theories are simple. selfreported measure used here. Ranney. Summala. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. It was felt. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Michon. 2002. during the study design process. To summarise. 5. In the present research. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. Further research is required. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. have high information content. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e.7. 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. 2004). 2005). are testable and contain no contradictions.. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. 1991). 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. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. In addition. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 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. 1997). 2005). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. 2004).

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

but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. In the present research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). hopelessness. who argued that. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. for instance. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. 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. In this case.3). This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 304). the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. Yet. 2. In 217 . 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 95-96). 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. and if they are resultscentred (pp. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control.

Kerlinger (2000) and others. 5.2 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). lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. much current research. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.3. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. psychoticism. While the present research 218 .other studies. conscientiousness. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. crash-free driving.4). With several exceptions. for instance. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. sensation seeking (Sümer. openness. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. The contextual mediated framework. as defined by Grayson (1997). 2. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. extraversion. 2005) were included as distal variables. According to Ranney (1994). depression. anxiety. while still very much a model and not a theory. not on everyday driving.7.. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 2003).

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

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

for the last fifty years. 5.7. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. At the same time. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.7. Slinn. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1957). 1). World Health Organisation.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. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. or legal intervention. From this has emerged the growing 221 . Unlike 100 years ago. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.5.7.4). teams of humans. 1961.4. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1957.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. education.4. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.

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

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

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

225 . etc. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. – 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. and likelihood of. lane road conditions. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. Hi H 1. departure warning. keeping.1 Vehicle Road Environment  lane departure warning  lane marker improvements –  integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation.1. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.Table 5.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. 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. “rumble strips” in expressways. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. transitions for. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. infrastructure. 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. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. generally  comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point.

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

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

at least. H 1.1. weather-related road conditions. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.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.  dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.  driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. 228 . safety messages. This information allows drivers to avoid or. notification of construction ahead. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.

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

1978. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p.4. or an internal locus of control. First. 2007.7. 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. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. N6). The bias of false consensus. Second. from the findings of the present research. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. p.5. 1030). and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. that “Of these three approaches. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. p. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. 265). This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. legal measures change least often. such as visibility of enforcement. was studied in a 230 .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. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. They also stated. however. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.

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

or not adhere. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations. 232 .drivers’ decisions to adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. Similarly.

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

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

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

findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. 313). Indeed. 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. injuries and death. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. 236 . Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). educational and enforcement spheres. In the present research. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. management. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

T.G.[77] Carver. Malaysia.F. Visser. [78] Chalmé. 557-562. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.ghipr. Cheung. November). R. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier. November 12). P. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.H. Matto Grosso do Sul. H. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. 21(4). gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Campo Grande. Sunway Campus. J.pdf 244 . [85] Cheung. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.. Brazil.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. J.-H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. T.M. (2000).W. 109-122. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Denis. March 20-22. (2007). S. and Nash. and Huguenin. and Yeh.D.ictct. (2004).. R. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. 2008 from http://www. 10(2). In Rothengatter. What are we allowed to ask.-L. S. W. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. [81] Chang. M. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. 61-71). Kuala Lumpur. Driving: through the eyes of teens. [79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005). F. R. Retrieved October 15. (2006). The Star. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. [82] Chaplin. (2007.0. Monash University.. [84] Cheah. [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). (Eds. New York: Dell. Howard. 467-477. N6. Taiwan. Personality and Individual Difference. (1985). Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved March 31. (1996). and Lim. Y. R. D.P.-H. 41. 2007 from http:www.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

97.407-423.J.B.. (2005). Additional dimensions of internal-external control. (Ed.[266] Lawton. 38. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. and Morgan. H. (1983). [275] Levenson. [271] Lenior. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. [268] Leech. (1974). 253-269).P. Dutton. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.. Janssen. R. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research..V. Mahwah. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Barrett. (2002).L.. Journal of Social Psychology. 659-662.M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [273] LeShan. (1973).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. N. D. 37. C. H. Jehle. 177-196. (2002). 397-401. 303-304. and Stiller.M. (2001). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. 377-383. 479-490. (1989). G. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 2nd Edition.M. 93.C. Conner.G. (1975). New York: Academic. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. Billittier. H. [274] Levenson. Journal of Personality Assessment. A. L. H. 41. (1976). E. A. 3. W. [269] Lefcourt. [267] Lee. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. British journal of Psychology. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. IV. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Cancer as a turning point. pp.A. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.K. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.M. H.M. and Nutter. R. [272] Lerner. Malay dominance and opposition politics.. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Applied Ergonomics. K. In Lefcourt. [270] Lefcourt. H. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. [276] Levenson. New York: E. H. G. 262 . Moscati.

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

R.W. May). Monash University Accident Research Centre. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. of affect. M. Australia. [295] Maruyama.. Watson. and Hershberger. H.M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 391-411. R. Journal of Personality. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.W. and Wan. 593-597. Victoria NSW. (2000).. M. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.F. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.M. and Williams. 18(4). 27(1).L. A. I. 31.A. [294] Martin. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.R.. and Mooran. 185-217. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Campbell. and level of education. L. Quality & Quantity. and McDonald. (1986). 299313. [297] Matthews. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size..L. J. G. K. and Jessurun. J. Report No.P. Balla.F. 103. (1999). Annual mileage. Journal of Rehabilitation.K. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. P. C.L. (1998). D.A. C. A. J. S. [292] Marsh. [293] Marsh.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. 233-252). Accident Analysis & Prevention. age. (1994). [290] Macdonald. D. [289] Maakip.R. G. Psychological Bulletin. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2003). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. (1997). and Balla. (1995). [296] Massie. 264 . (Ed. J. 55(2).L. (1989). H. W. [288] Luckner.M. R. (1994. In Dorn. 68(5).L. (1988). behavior and cognition. 869-897. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling.R. 129. 73-87.28..A. [291] Marcoulides. Malaysia. 62-67. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Vissers.[287] Lourens. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Journal of Safety Research. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Retrieved December 11. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. and Voas. Theories of science in traffic psychology. R. R. (2000). Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. 485-489. R.D. (1999). E. (2000). Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Stress and Health. and Voas.efpa. and Huguenin. (2007) Statistik2006. Tippetts. R. P.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. W-R. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. [379] Risser. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Tippetts.G. [383] Robbins. (2002). E. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. A. P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. (2004).P. Singapore: Elsevier. In Rothengatter. (Eds. cities. 45(8).L. Anger. and Solomon. 2007 from http://www. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. Ergonomics.R. Journal of Safety Research. K.. Report to the General Assembly.A. 37(1). 37(3). In Lim. T. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. 569-582.html [382] Robbins. 272 . (Ed).. and Downe.B. 2007 from http://202. [384] Romano.Y.G. [376] Rice.190. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. (2003). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 34(15). and Nickel. Retrieved May 23. S. [377] Richardson. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. (2003. [381] Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. S. S. R. H. Weinstein.[375] Retting. [378] Rimmö. R. S.pdf [380] Risser. 453-460. [385] Romano.S. M. April). 1-7.64. P-A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. some of the time ___ yes. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. most of the time ___ no 10. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. Within the last twelve (12) months. When you want to use a car. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.8.

What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.12. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. Within the last twelve months.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.