This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. email@example.com Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
However. hopelessness. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. respectively). vii . 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. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. on average. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. and destination-activity orientation. and that driver behaviours. 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). externally-focused frustration. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. some personality constructs. personality traits. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. demographic (age. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. 302 and 252. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. seven fatalities are recorded each day. freeway urgency. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). where.
As reported in previous studies. 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. viii . locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. 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. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Among distal variables. As hypothesised. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. BIT. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Results indicated that. The role of the proximal variable. 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. as well. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed.
3. Theories and Models 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 2.1 Concepts.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 An Applied Perspective 126.96.36.199.5 1.1 Accident Proneness 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 188.8.131.52.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.4 184.108.40.206 1.3 ix .220.127.116.11.3 1.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.4.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 1.
6.2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3 Ethnicity 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.3 Psychological Variables 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.3.5 2.3.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5.2 Gender 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1 Demographic Variables 126.96.36.199.1 Experience 188.8.131.52.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 184.108.40.206 Age 2.2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 220.127.116.11.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.3.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2 Process Models 2.6 2.2.4 Hopelessness 3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 184.108.40.206 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1 Locus of Control 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.220.127.116.11 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 18.104.22.168 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.5.3 Locus of Control 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 Hopelessness 2.4.4.
188.8.131.52 Degree of freedom (df) 3.4 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 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 .5.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 18.104.22.168.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3.3 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.6 3.1 Study 1A 3.7 3.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2.1 Chi-Square (χ2).3 Study 1C 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.6.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 188.8.131.52.1 The Sample 184.108.40.206 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 220.127.116.11.3.2 Research Instruments 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 18.104.22.168.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 22.214.171.124 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.2 Study 1B 3.7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 126.96.36.199.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 188.8.131.52 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.4 Study 2 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 184.108.40.206 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.
6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.2 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 220.127.116.11.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.3 4.6.15 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 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.3.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.1 Age.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.5.5 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.5.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.4 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.2.1 Results of Study 1 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.6 xii .6. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Description of the Sample 126.96.36.199.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 220.127.116.11.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.
1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 22.214.171.124.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.5.5 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.3.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4.1 Study 1C 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.3 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 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.8.7 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 184.108.40.206.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 220.127.116.11.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.6 xiii .2 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.4 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.1 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.2 Study 2 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.6.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 18.104.22.168.9.8 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.6.
4.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 22.214.171.124.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.1 Theory vs.4.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7 5.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Education 5.3 Driver Selection.126.96.36.199.
10 4.5 4.LIST OF TABLES No. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.6 4.2 3.9 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 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.4 3.1 2.3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.3 3.11 xv .4 115 117 118 119 4.1 4. Table Page 2.3 3.5 4.7 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.1 3.
23 136 4.16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.14 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.18 131 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4.12 4.19 133 4.4.28 4.29 xvi .20 134 4.21 135 4.25 138 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.27 4.13 4.17 129 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.
32 4.39 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.31 4.35 4.41 175 5.34 4.6 xvii .3 5.37 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.30 4.4 208 5.4.36 4.33 4.2 5.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.
3 4.7 2.4 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.1 2.2 3.4 4.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.2 147 148 4. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 4.3 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2.3 3.4 148 xviii . 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.2 2. 1996. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.1 3.9 59 2.6 2.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Hatakka.
10 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.9 4.5 4.12 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.4.13 xix .
I told her not to worry. I’m a fairly big guy. like encounters with fairies and werewolves.PREFACE Accidents occur. They were hurrying. and his mental state. they are prone to other types of error as well. I didn’t recognise her at first. they were focused on the errand. He was driving. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. finally. He was very popular with other students. I feel like it a bit right now. lane deviation and all the rest. She started crying and couldn’t stop. programme. is a matter of debate … Obviously. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. The behaviour of the traveller. I hope it makes a contribution. I got back to work on them. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. I was confused by the results I was getting. I wanted to throw in the towel. He didn’t want to go. to the weary traveler. but she’d nagged him. xx . only a trimester or two earlier. things were not going well. But sometimes. I knew the fellow. And they crashed. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. But.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I don’t cry much any more. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. My research design needed a serious re-working. I’m pretty happy with it. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. he’d taken the same course as she. How important these factors are. they were frustrated and angry with each other. externally-focused frustration. or wouldn’t. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. they cut across a lane too quickly. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I like to watch boxing. She had been badly injured. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. just every so often.D. she was riding pillion. LISREL couldn’t. . They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. Her hands and voice quivered. and this thesis is the result. She had needed to go on an errand. at least not with real tears.
anticipation. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle.g. 2001. Green. Verwey. Even after decades of study. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. judgement. 2001). commented that. policy-makers. Trick..g. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2002. Sabey (1999). 2000). 2004) have been studied extensively. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. Stanton & Pinto. Mills & Vavrik. 11). 1996. Olson. for instance. Sleet. Graham. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. state of mind and physical well-being. Peters & Peters. Ogden. road. Furuichi & Kadoma. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Iwasaki. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 2000). 2002).1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 1999). 2004). 2000. 2007. 2006. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Theeuwes. 2007. Scurfield. including the 1 . Consistently over the years. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden.. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. perceptual (Hong. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2004). Enns. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Mohan & Hyder. cognitive (Vaa. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. such as Malaysia.
with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. “the literature on personality has a long history. McKenna. 1983). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2005). as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.roadway. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. p. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.332 drivers and 15. locus of control.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. The chapter 1.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 2004. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. including the study of a large number of variables. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. A total of 10. However. There was a total of 341.790. 2 .112).351.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. 2003). 2007). 2002. 21). 1989). According to Dewar (2002b).
Barrett & Alexander. Vasconcellos. Ball & Rizzon. Gonzalez. 3). attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Barjonet & Tortosa. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Rimmö. 2004. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 3 . Gidron. 1997. 2006. 1993. 2005. locus of control (Arthur. Cohn. Huang. Elander.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Lajunen & Kaistinen. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 2003. 2004). Gal & Syna Desevilya. Wu & Yen. Stewart. 2000. 2002. 2002. 2003). ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 1997). aggression (Parkinson. Hence. 2005). 2000). 2007). Hwang. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Schwebel. 1999. Wells. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 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. 1991. Draskóczy. 2004. 1979. 1997). 2002) and many others. 2001. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Wells-Parker et al. Lin. 2001). Loo. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Historically. 2006. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Verwey. West & French. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Dewar. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Shinar. 2005. Parada & Cortes. Ulleberg. 2002b. 1997). Blasco. 2001. Severson. 2002. 1994. Lajunen & Summala. Özkan. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Renner & Anderle. 1997). Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Sumala & Zakowska.
falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. The relationship between functional models which predict dynamic road user behaviour and the availability of broader integrative theory in traffic psychology is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this thesis.e. vehicle. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. Parker. 2004).. 1997. for instance. in turn. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.e. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. in particular. Sümer (2003). externally-focused frustration. Hampson & Morris. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. 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. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 1. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. however. A frequent criticism. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 1997). 1996.Increasingly. 2005). personality and demographic) and proximal (i. Speeding. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Noy (1997). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human.
5 . and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 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. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. p. (b) driving experience. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. (c) driver locus of control.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. (d) driver hopelessness.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 2005. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. 9). Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. gender and ethnicity. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. situated as proximal variables. injuries and deaths. but also on their interactions. (e) driver aggression. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. By focusing on not only demographic. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 1.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 1997). Some authors have suggested that. Katila & Peräaho. 94). 1993). the plethora of theories available. “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. road safety measures and public policy. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. There is a growing sentiment that. 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. in the applied sciences. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 2004). Moreover. 6 . they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Rothengatter. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 2001. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Utzelmann. 2004.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 1974). Laapotti. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 2004. 2005. 2000). p. 1997. Näätänen & Summala. Hatakka. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour.
In doing so.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. which deals with methodology. 2001). and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. human motivation.g. 7 . although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. Radin Umar. attitude theory. 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. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway..g.. 1. 2001). To the author’s knowledge. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. in turn. It is useful. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. Che Ali. This broader perspective.
Study 2 and Study 3. driving experience. 711). 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. variables (Sekaran. driving (experience. 2003). cultural background). Babin. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. In this case. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. aggression. Black. or outcome. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. freeway urgency. at the conclusion of Study 1C. 2006. In each successive study. first. gender. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. hopelessness. The final result. second. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. the effects of selected demographic (age. each entailing data collection from a different sample. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . moderating and mediating relationships between variables. In Study 1. p. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. 1B and 1C). to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented.however. Anderson & Tatham.
two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. verbally administered psychometric instruments. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. 9 .are most important in predicting. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. 1.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. a third model was constructed. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. over the course of 30. After the initial model-building had been completed. in fact. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. In Study 2. Again. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university.to 45-minute trips. In Study 3. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.
while recognising the distinction. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. 1997). However. Boyce & Geller. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. The present research. at least to a certain extent. as well. 1990). Are the attitudes.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. The relationship between the manner 10 . 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. Katila & Laapotti. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Stradling. Baxter & Campbell. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Keskinen. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. 2002. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Manstead. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Finally.
11 .in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
in order of frequency. “patient”. to a rapid increase 12 . 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. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population.1. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. industrialisation and motorisation. 2003). 2005). when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2007). 2007). there were 341. 2007).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. economic expansion. “laid-back” and “considerate”. inconsiderate and aggressive. 1989). “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. “friendly”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. Over 6. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. In newspaper reports. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. in aggregate. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. These are thought to have contributed. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 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.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. “reckless”. 2005). “impatient”. 2005). A developing country in Southeast Asia.1 2. 2007).1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. 2006). “peaceful”. “bullies” and “selfish”. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. Recently. they indicated “angry”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.
287 in 2006.98 deaths per 10.20 deaths per 10. Subramaniam & Law. Mohd Zulkiflee. from 189. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.218 2005 6. Table 2.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.2).815 2005 328. This suggests that studies.287 9.741 38. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings. 2005). In Malaysia.7111 2003 298.425 2003 6. Generally. in Malaysia.645 54. Abdul Rahman.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.395 2006 6.891 8.200 9.885 35.417 47.228 9.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.000 vehicles in 2006.236 49. Radin Umar. Studies 13 .425 5.000 vehicles (Law. 2007). one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. 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. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. Table 2.653 2004 326. 2005).286 9.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 2005).304 in 1994 to 6.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.552 37.012 19. 2003.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. & Wong.091 37.264 2006 341.040 2004 6. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.415 52.
329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.82 1.26 463 2.40 1.205 11.005 15.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.54 708 3.216 10.378 11.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.48 105 0.77 3.921 100 20.21 3.4 billion to RM5. and particularly among younger drivers.947 10.416 6. or an average of RM4.07 2.820 13.953 17. 2006).22 150 0.99 164 0.90 159 0.551 12.15 43 0.71 543 2.72 554 2.50 979 4.08 1.7 billion.29 708 3.341 12.76 22.45 30 0.97 1.68 3.025 9. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.15 572 2.64 135 0.448 17.709 8. 14 .110 10.63 160 0.06 608 3.10 3. 2002.593 11.67 billion.08 585 2.038 13.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.91 984 4.178 15.85 2.997 14.07 2.81 1.803 9.469 15.05 1.086 9.08 541 2.49 450 2.92 2.180 10.92 1.47 280 1. It has been reported that.94 2.85 147 0.80 203 0. Table 2. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.94 1.431 7.11 2.94 625 3.61 99 0. 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. Morrison & Ryan.05 2.65 2.37 337 1.15 3. Palamara.84 1. 2003).389 6.29 2.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.81 2.48 323 1.27 458 2.049 15.31 3. 2005).418 100 19. or about 2.309 10.05 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.315 17.967 100 19.81 3. 2001.034 4.023 5.68 128 0.08 2. general insurers paid RM1.23 2.56 3.65 121 0. in 1999 alone.67 206 0.620 7.16 90 0. 2001).41 302 1.
signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . Some seven years later. lane definition. (Bernama. 2005). economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. 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. What else can we do. traffic congestion. The economic consequences can be estimated. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones.Yet. which is actually a nightmare. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. if people want to die? (Lim. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. 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. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 1999). or the pain of the maimed. 2006). Criticisms of road configuration. 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. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. In 1999. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation.
693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. unlike in other countries. 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. 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. given greater risks of accident. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. as compared with 1. 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. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. though. for instance. In a recent newspaper interview. Who they are. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2006). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 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 . 1997). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Generally. newspaper columnists. how they think. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders.(Abdul Rahman et al. is often mentioned as a factor. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2005). 2001. 2007). Krishnan & Radin Umar. Researchers. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. In 2006. 2007). 2005).
Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. 2007). For instance. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Ward. Mohd Nasir. This is. In none of the studies of the MSP. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Ahmad Hariza. Bartle & Truman. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. injuries and fatalities. respectively. however. Musa. conspicuity and excessive speeding. perhaps. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. 1996). causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. 17 .1.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. 2. (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. Chalmers & Langley. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. In the same study. rather than personality factors. Law et al. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. In a separate study. Law. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. Radin Umar. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use.
these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. resulted in a myriad of problems. According to Williamson. has linked peninsular communities. 18 . he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. generalising to all driving environments and situations. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities.122). 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. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 1996). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. they are accident prone. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 110). Social attitudes and experience engendered by the rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have infiltrated the broader national consciousness. 121-122).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. however. since 1994. Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. The very monotony of the road surface. This. He argued that. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”.
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 784). etc. by far. experiential. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. but rather 19 . bad road conditions. 1993). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p.2. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. 62). particularly. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. Åberg.2 2. 1993. 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. personality characteristics (Elander. West and French. Among engineering factors. Christ. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. This has included the examination of age and gender. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).2. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. levels of driving experience and. 1991). research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. Among human factors. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006).
(b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. or at least predict. unclear. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 2004). noted that “one of the remarkable aspects of motor vehicle accident research has been the willingness of many to base scientific investigations on data of a quality which would immediately cause their rejection as the stuff of research in any other subject area” (p. 1994). psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. 2002. 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. Haddon (1963). Lajunen & Summala. Ranney. However. weak. 377). empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . 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. Further. 641). 1997. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 2004) and other contextual variables. prior accident experience (Lin et al. 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.by the behaviour of drivers. to a large degree. 2005). While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance.
psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 2002. 321). the use of inconsistent crash definitions.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. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. information processing. 2003).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 1993). accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Nevertheless. Underwood & Milton. 1997a). 2003). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 1996. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 21 . the lack of replication of many studies. Preston & Harris.2. the picture that emerges is indeed grave.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2005). Wagenaar & van Koppen.2.2. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 1961. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. there has been an interest in driver personality. 2. The 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. 482).
Ochando. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. ergonomics. anthropology and sociology. or the psychological support for intervention. in a Spanish survey.) 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. or peculiar to. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. psychology. but that complex traffic 22 . 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. 2002). integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. To wit. Indeed. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. medicine. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.2. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 4). 3).2. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.654-655. transportation planning. in the field of traffic. 246). predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. traffic and transportation. eoncompassing engineering.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. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. 2.” (p.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. According to Rothengatter (2001).
there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. 1158). which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. over the past ten years. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. in particular. Wilson. the road environment comprises the vehicle. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Stanton (2007) noted that. 2003. Ergonomics has made a contribution. 2002). the study of cognitive processes. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. the road infrastructure and other road users. Johnston. Peden & Hyder. 2007. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. In the broadest sense. 1995. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. 2000). and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 24). as well. 1997. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. Garner and Zwi. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. In a recent special edition.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. surrounding environments and 23 . 2004. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Odero. Hyder & Peden.
Stanton & Young. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2006. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Jannssen. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. 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. 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. 26). 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.3. error and cognitive modelling. 2001). 2. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . Noy. predict and modify road user behaviour.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Increasingly. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Neerincx & Schriebers. Walker. 2004). in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. particularly the notions of mental load. Theories and Models In attempting to understand.3 2. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. though. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 1997. ergonomic inputs into this body of knowledge are shifting from a perspective of understanding peoples’ interactions with driving-related artefacts to a role that contributes to the design of interacting systems in order to satisfy user needs and desires (Stanton. “This school of though. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.
whether theories should explain everyday driving. Healy. but for the purposes of this thesis.3. 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. 1995). 2005). which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. or accident-causing behaviours. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. 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. this may be due to 25 .. 1985).2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. Reasons for this are likely several. To a degree. A-18) Often.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. In traffic psychology. p. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. 1969). generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. many models have been proposed. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 2000. 2005. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. p. in traffic psychology. 2. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. often in mathematical form. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. or both. On the other hand.
Notwithstanding these difficulties. Instead.the imprecise definition of concepts.3. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. and most of the time is not especially influential. enjoy driving. avoid obstacles. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. risk adaptation theories. 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. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. 2005). For over ninety years. 189). taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. feel in control. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. motives and personalities (Robbins.. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. Rothengatter. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. and emotional determinants. given the complexity of human behaviour. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. 2002). not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. social. etc. attitudes. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. minimise delay and driving time. 2004. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. 26 . 2. perceptions. cognitive.
crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. However. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. McRae &Costa. 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). 1995. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. aggression. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. conscientiousness. 2000). but not occupational accidents. neuroticism. anxiety and driving anger. for instance. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 1979). 1980) and other safety outcomes. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. aged 16 to 29 years. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. According to Rothengatter (2002). 1990).
2. 1993. occupational and otherwise. 290). The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. his or her accident proneness. 1920).152). found first that the frequency of accidents. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.finding. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . In 1917. sensori-motor skill. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. personality. in certain cases. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. p. p. 1962. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule.3. during and following the war years. West & French.3. 1984). but persists today. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. the average number of accidents. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. According to Haight (2004). The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. “irrespective of environment. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. just as one can meaure height. weight and perhaps even intelligence. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. If each individual has a unique λ-value. Research by board statisticians. λ. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.
more probably psychological (p. p. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 1929. at home. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. 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. noting that. in traffic or when playing 29 . A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 1991. 422). in a Finnish telephone survey. 294). Scores on the λ dimension. in any sample. subjects reported significant. 1956). 195). 2004). that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. inappropriate. “Because crashes are so infrequent. 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. 1939) and many others. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1997). inadequate or irrelevant. perhaps physiological. The accident-prone concept. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). made an assumption that. but did not take into consideration whether. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Farmer and Chambers (1926. in successive years. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Johnson (1946). None of the experiments. as well. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. produced a positive. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. however. by devising clever tests. 2004). with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid.out what that value is. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that.
While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. 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. 1993).3. 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”. sports and family settings. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 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. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. Stolk. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. Pijl. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.. 2. roadway. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. therefore. 1980. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.3. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. pp. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Ultimately.sports. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . 562). The concept itself is ill-defined. So. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 8-9). Visser.05.
2000). but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. large earth-moving 31 .accident proneness (Chmiel.3. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. Wilde (1982. 2. The introduction of divided highways. 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. crash barriers. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. experience more accidents than others. However.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. For example. A driver who enters a construction zone. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. following their review of the literature. 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. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. albeit not crash occurrence. in a study of driving on icy roads. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. in fact. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and..3.4. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. 2. Elander et al. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. That is. substantially. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.
vehicles and warning flags. 2005). McHugh & Pender. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. 1997). Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. flat. according to the theory. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. In two separate studies. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 1994. according to the theory. 2008. Ranney. That is. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 1988. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 1989. p. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . When others (Haight. Michon. Sagberg. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 2002). Wilde. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde.” (Fuller. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. at least until the target risk level was reached. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 14). given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Initially. Fosser & Sætermo. Conversely. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 1986. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. a driver motoring along a wide. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. in turn. 2001. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. for example. Collectively.
it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. 2004). Fischoff. or the nation” (Brown & Noy.. 1994. however. 223). (p. 2001.. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. Evans 33 . 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. 53). The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. To the contrary. p. 1977). pay sufficient attention to risk. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 2002). Rothengatter.” (Vaa. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. but they are not defined in psychological terms. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. Corrigan & Coombs.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. p. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 2004). the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 1989. Lichtenstein. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. the community. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 1151). “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. More than any other driving theory. Slovic. 2002). Also. 2008.
zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 81). 26). drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.4. and 34 . for example. O’Neill and Williams (1998). Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. 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. At this point. 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. 2004. Rather. Summala. 92). 1987. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. p. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 2. after a similar review. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating.3. In other words. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. In addition. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. or expecting.
in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Gregersen. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. age and social variables.1). their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. On the other hand. Summala (1996.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 1996. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. Van der Hulst. Hataaka. 35 . and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. 1998. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. for instance. Reeder et al. and specific driver actions. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). 2002.learn how to respond safety to. much of which arises from personality. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Keskinen. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. such as time pressure. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 2. 1999). Meijman & Roghengatter. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. as a result. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. A large number of studies show that external motives.3.
criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. but that is not 36 . 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. at the same time.1: Task Cube (from Summala. for example. (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. 1996) Keskinen et al. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. seemingly concurrently. a property absent within the task cube concept. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. 15). Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.
Most of the time. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 252). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. high speeds. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2..3. 1982. affective states). Fuller (2000. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 2000) 37 .6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. However. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e.1).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2. 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. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.g. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.
generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . p. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 2004. 126). providing an account of the way in which attitudes. Two limitations have been noted. 1985. Fishbein & Ajzen. p. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. Generally. 40). Since 1985. for the most part.Fuller’s theory has. time pressure). objects.6. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. 1985. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 1991). people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.3. however.3. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. emotional state. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. institutions or issues (Chaplin. and Keskinen et al. 2. According to the TRA. 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. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour.
then. “Even very mundane activities. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 2. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. According to the TPB. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). To deal with this uncertainty.” (Azjen. p. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 2007). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. see Figure 2. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). 1985.2). however (Sharma & Kanekar. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).3.7. 24). 39 . denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.
3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Further. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. greater perceived control (i.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.. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. p. the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 2002. 253). it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 1989) Within the theory. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). 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. when intention is held constant. In one study. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 40 . on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. or sense of self-efficacy. 2003).e. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 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.
4 2. based on data extracted from police record forms. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.2).4. 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. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. 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. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. vehicles. but after controlling for distance travelled. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Similar to later findings by Law et al.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. Many of these use accident data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. for instance.In another study. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.1.2. Austin and Carson (2002). A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. 2002). Attitude toward speeding.
Koonchote & Tantiratna. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. R. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Law. 1998. 1999). Nguntra. the road (R) and the environment (E).2 Process Models 2. Richardson & Downe.locations and settings (e. E and especially H factors.g. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. Mahasakpan.2. the vehicle (V).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). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1994).4. Seow & Lim. 2. Swaddiwudhipong.. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.4. 2000).4). More recently. 1997) 42 . within specific situational contexts. 1997. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. however.
on one hand. age.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. substance abuse) that. 283).5). sensation seeking. Personality factors within the 43 . reckless lane transitions or overtaking.. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.4. extraversion. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.g. 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. contribute directly to crash outcomes. aggression).. 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. gender..g. more proximal variable. Therefore. Factors within the distal context include not only road.g. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. it may influence crash risk through some other. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. speeding.2. on the other hand. Within the generic model. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. By contrast. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.2. as well. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.
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. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. e. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. psychological symptoms. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. depression.g. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. risk taking. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. As such. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. 2003) 44 . DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. sensation seeking. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.
driver propensities to commit errors or violations. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. moderating or mediating effects. 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. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency.2. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 45 . then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. 2003). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. 2006). Figure 2. M. for instance. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny.6(i). In Figure 2. such that path c′ is zero. If. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.2. 1986). Also termed intervening variables.4. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. 2004). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. called the outcome. Tix and Barron.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.
1986). or testing the moderating effect. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. or dependent. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable.7): the impact of a predictor. 2003). variable (see Figure 2. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or independent variable (path a). 46 . can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. 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 2.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.
4. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. Further. hostility. and non-professional students who were mostly students. he found that. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. hostility.2. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. given wide 47 . while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. psychoticism). sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. In turn. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. anxiety. Using structured equation modelling. errors). dangerous drinking). they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. more relevant to the model he proposed. verbal aggression. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. anger). choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. However.
Arthur. agreeableness (helpfulness.739). personality model (Costa & McRae. 2002. Tubré & Tubré. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . 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. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 2003. driving style and other distal and proximal variables were the same at the time of the crash as they were when data were collected (af Wahlberg. McRae &Costa. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). 1995. Greenwood & Yule. 1998). It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. Elander et. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. 2005. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Day. trust). 1990) to a similar analysis. 1920). Bell. for high-λ individuals. Edward. lapses. 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. al. Here. Sümer. applied the five factor. 1919. as recommended by Elander et al. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. In a subsequent study. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. broad-mindedness). in most cases. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. (1993) and others.. conscientiousness (dependability. responsibility. Watson. sensation seeking patterns. sensation seeking). or “Big Five”. 1993). while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Finally.
perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. prior to the present one. In another study. yielding support for the contextual mediated model.2. 2. 225).aberrant driving behaviours. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. hostility.4. material loss. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Sümer. for instance. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Bilgic. Sümer. self esteem. Karanci. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. Berument and Gunes (2005). including perceived control. air force and gendarmerie. They found that the effect of proximal variables. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. navy. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. In other words. reported that driver anger. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. have acted on those recommendations. anxiety. phobia. optimism. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. 49 . using a similar research design.
g.5 2. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.8). Williams & Shabanova.. Type A. 1997. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. 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.. Weinstein & Solomon. 1995). 2003). but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. Retting.g.5. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Campbell & Williams. 2003.1. 2007) 2.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.5.Downe (2007). proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Odero et al. Yet. 2002.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 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.
irresponsibility and driving related aggression. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. In fact. Vassallo et al.. follow too closely. this is a reflection of lifestyle. Matthews & Moran. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. tobacco smoking. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. 1997b. at least in part. less emotionally mature. Bina. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . Moscati. 221). However. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Billittier. The former is less experienced at driving. specifically more likely to drive too fast.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 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. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. drive while fatigued. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. 1986). 2002a. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. Jonah. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 2001. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Harré. Connery & Stiller. 2002a. Jehle. the contrary appears to be true. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. p. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. overtake dangerously. for these difficulties. in many cases. 2007).
Ulleberg. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. 2007). capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions).that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. Justification of age-related hypotheses. Stevenson et al. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. (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.39). 52 . Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. and that young drivers. 2002). it was hypothesised in the present study that. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. In the present study. indirectly. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Vissers & Jessurun. as age decreased. on crash and injury occurrence. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. 1999. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. Similarly. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.
for instance. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. for instance. Monárrez-Espino. However. 2. for instance. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours.4). Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). more often at hazardous times (e. darkness)” (p. Shope. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. MacGregor. p. Elliott. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.failure to use seat-belts. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. self-reported injury would also increase. 2004. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced.1. Waller. as well. 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.5.. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. as age decreased. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females.g. Chipman.. it was also hypothesised that. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. “In all studies and analyses. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. 129). Tavris.g. without exception. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. it 53 .
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. At the same time.S. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . 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. Lenard. 1997. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Ball. 525526). (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Brown. Lonczak. for instance. While there is much of value in such an approach. found that while male drivers. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. worldwide. which typically took place during evenings and nights. This is important.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Woodcock. Dobson. to date. reported more traffic citations and injuries. in a sample taken in the U. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. 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. 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. Flyte & Garner. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. Welsh. (b) females drive increasingly more. state of Washington.
Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. Female drivers. In the present study. Lourens et al. The authors in each case concluded that females’ attitudes and self-reported behaviour were becoming increasingly similar to the attitudes and behaviour of male drivers. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. just as they had in 1978. as per the traditional pattern. evaluated their driving skill lower. though. on crash and injury occurrence. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers.anger. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. 2006. on the other hand. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). 11). McKenna. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. control of traffic situations. and loss-of-control incidents. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. 2003). involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding.. In other research. 55 . were less frequently involved in crash situations. Laapotti. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. Forward. (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. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. et al. indirectly. 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. Turner & McClure. showing that male drivers were. In a study of Dutch drivers. In a subsequent report.
more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. nonCatholic countries.5. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Haliburton. differences in fatalities persisted. Garrett. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. 2005). Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Corry. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Levine. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Schlundt. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.2. Summala and Hartley (1998). Romano. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Lajunen. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. To a large degree.S. Harper. lower rates of safety belt use. In one of the few studies reported. On the other hand.1. But. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. for instance. Goldweig and Warren. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Marine.
In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Indirect communication. harmony with nature.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. 2005). Conscious of what other people say about us. family honour. respect for knowledge. However. Strong relationship orientation. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. 2000. respect for elders. peace. filial piety. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. indirectly. on crash and injury occurrence. Spirituality. piety. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. Karma. 1999). polite behaviour. brotherhood/sisterhood.. humility.2). family ties. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. in fact. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. In the present study. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Family centeredness. shame-driven. Fatalistic. They concluded that there were. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. hard work. respect for elders. hierarchical. While religious affiliation. Roman et al. cooperation. prosperity and integrity.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. courtesy. cultural differences can be more subtle. 1999).. prosperity. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. face saving. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. religion. respect for elders. Table 2. Strong relationship orientation. Education. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.
On the other hand. although not always. Keskinen. Laapotti.5. etc. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. and as such. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. with different weather conditions. 166).2 Driver Characteristics 2. in a given road and traffic scenario. 1995. As experience grows. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. Allied to this. 2002). or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.behaviour in traffic. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. Lajunen & Summala. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups.5.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. as drivers become more experienced.g. directionality of the effect was not predicted. increased experience usually. 2. A large number of studies have shown that. journey lengths. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Hatakka and Katila. 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 . allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. passenger distractions different vehicles. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.2. 2001). inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. 1971).
experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. 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.by Keskinen. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. 1996. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. 2004). 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. as individuals acquire experience. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. environment. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. Internal models contain knowledge of route. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. in many studies of age and gender differences. GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. 2001).9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Yet. Hataaka and Katila (1992). as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. It assumes that. Hatakka. 59 . including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. direction and position Figure 2.9). When using those at the top of the hierarchy.
Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained.g. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. 2004). and especially young male drivers. Mintz. Peltzer and Renner (2003). such as problems in vehicle handling skills. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. 1948. A simple measure of driving experience. Young novice drivers. Brown & Ghiselli.. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Ghiselli & Brown. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. for instance.Laapotti et al. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. was used in this study. 2007). Female novice drivers. 1949. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. on the other hand. 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. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. 1954). Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 .
and type of route where. McKenna. the concept is much less well developed.2. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. 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. 2002a). 2. it is accepted that the more one travels. 1971). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 1984. First. Duncan & Brown.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. driving occurs (Dewar. Generally. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. the miles they drive. 1993). Wilde. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1984). and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. Elander et al.5. 2001. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 .. for instance. on crash and injury occurrence. Pelz & Schuman. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. Rothengatter. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. indirectly. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. In individual differences research.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 282). 1995. 1986. 1991). the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. Second.
a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Christie. Mercer (1989) showed that. In the present study. Cairns. 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. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. 2007. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Yet. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. Bina et al. Evans (1991) and others. 2003). In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. 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. Justification of exposure hypotheses. although much research does not (e. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Ferguson. (1999) have argued that. as defined by Elander et al. 2007). indirectly.. however. (1986). 2007. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure.. 62 .g. in countries like the USA. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Lourens et al. Towner and Ward. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. 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. without correcting for annual mileage. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Williams & Shabanova. on crash and injury occurrence. Teoh & MCartt. Odero et al.hours than during the forenoon. 2006. (1993).. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions.
or externals . In contrast. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.3. Hyman. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966.10). 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. 1990). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.3.g. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.3 Psychological Variables 2. 15). Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 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. Stanley & Burrows. 1999). 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. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e..5.1 Locus of Control 2. 2006.2.5. 1991.1 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. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.1. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. she separated the externality dimension into two. 1975. and second. Holder & Levi.5. 63 . 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. or internals. Levenson (1975. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).
They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.1. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. 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.Luckner.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. luck. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. 64 . They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. According to Phares (1976).3. Sinha & Watson. 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.
According to Brown and Noy (2004).More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. however. 65 . Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. 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. In a subsequent study. however. 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. 39). 1999). s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. On the other hand. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. French & Chan. but results have been inconsistent. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. 1987). as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content.
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. In a much earlier study. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. Gidron. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. (p. They found that. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Arthur et al. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. although internality was unrelated to DDB. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. offences. 1260). rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. In an important study. 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). Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. cognitive. That is. On the other hand.
behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. is based on the notion that … luck. Italy.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Israel. complexity and unpredictability. Germany. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. indicated that. Japan. as hypothesised.3. Hsieh. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. 122). In very early research.1. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Noy (1997). Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Their results. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. and the USA. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. (1991). 2. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 .5. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. France. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Noting that Chinese culture. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Canada and Japan. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. India.
Chinese and Indian populations. 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. 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. skill and ability. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. This was very true for the locus of control variable. 68 . all internal characteristics. At the same time. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. only Cheung. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. 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. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Chinese of Malay extraction. Cheung. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. 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. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. To the author’s knowledge. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. In very early research. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism.
1991. Özkan & Lajunen. 1987.3. First. 2007). Ohberg.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. (2003). 1975. McMillan. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 1975). Montag & Comrey. 2. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Sinha & Watson.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 2007. Niméus. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. et al.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. 1973). Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 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. Kovacs and Weissman. Cases usually 69 . 1995. Beresford & Neilly. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Finally. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Weissman. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Fox & Klerman. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. 1997. on crash and injury occurrence. Gilbody. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.5. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. In the present study. indirectly. 2005). without objective basis.
indirectly. Second. including risky driving. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Very early on. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). 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. Firestone & Seiden. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. on crash and injury occurrence. it was 70 . in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. in a more detailed study. 1962). Selzer & Payne. luck. assertiveness and positive emotion. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1976. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1997. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. investigated the relationship between hopelessness.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1962). in fact. Prociuk. Breen and Lussier (1976).. In the present study. 1990. Several authors. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. 1974). for instance. 1998. 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. Mendel. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. Henderson.
including subjective feelings of stress. 2000. Mizell. 2006).3. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2. Barton and Malta. Deffenbacher.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 2000. Tzamalouka. Demakakos. 1999. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. learned cognitive scripts.5. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Filetti. 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. Koumaki. Underwood. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Wright & Crundall. 2003. and deindividuation. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 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. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Malta & Blanchard. In a largely unrelated study. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Wells-Parker et al. 71 .3 Aggression Since the 1980s. & Darviri. Bakou.. Richards. 2002. physiological arousal. 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. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. learned disinhibitory cues. Lynch & Oetting. 2002). which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Chapman. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Chliaoutaks.
which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. though. Bettencourt. rather than a cause of. Crowson. through the use of self-statements. More recently. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. as another. Talley. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . 1962). but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). lack of control over events. However. Schwebel et al. Snyder. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. such as TAPB. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. the display of aggression (p. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. 1976. 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. stress induced by time pressure. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Groeger (2000). cultural driving norms and situational conditions. (2006) extended Shinar’s (1998) efforts to broaden the focus of frustration-based explanations by showing that sensation seeking interacted with anger and hostility to influence driving violations. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Ellis. 163). Houston.
Undén. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. 1999. Deffenbacher. Rice. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson.. indirectly.6 2. (2003). Sato.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. Sani. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Petrilli. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Magnavita. Miyake. Williams & Haney. 1998. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. al. 2001). TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. In the present study. Frueh & Snyder. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Kamada. 2006). 73 . insecurity about status. Lynch. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 1985). Later still. It was also hypothesised. 2000. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kumashiro & Kume. and specific content. 1999). Carbone. 1981. Karlberg. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al.6. James & Nahl. that the total amount. 1999. Narda. Bettencourt et al. impatience. McKee. on crash and injury occurrence. 2. competitiveness. Elofsson & Krakau. 2006. Thurman.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. aggression. Blumenthal. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 2002.
Raikkonen. 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. socio-professional category. 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. gender. alcohol consumption. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). Chiron. focused on the time urgency component 74 . studied police officers in Italy. driving style. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. 1990). Consoli. 1979) and number of accidents. West. was driving frequency. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. In none of these studies. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. (1998). age. Chastang. 1989. category of vehicle. similarly. 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. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Nabi et al. Karlberg et al. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Zzanski & Rosenman. however. where Type A drivers were 4. but not with accident risk. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. however. In a correlational study of British drivers.000 employees of a French oil and gas company.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Nabi. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. particularly in driving situations that require prudence.
2. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.2 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.6. Of the four BIT factors. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. At the same time. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Glass. Gender. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. on the other hand. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. In a subsequent study. ethnicity. Miles and Johnson (2003).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. 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. then use of the Type A/B 75 . 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). 1977). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data.
They argued that it would be preferable. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. Similarly. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. To the author’s knowledge. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. on the other hand. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. In neither of their studies. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. although ethnicity. including gender. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. 13). on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. In the present study. driving experience. Specifically. locus of control. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . At the present time. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. though. ethnicity. 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. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. hopelessness. 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. that are measured by the BIT scale.
since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. 1986. 1985). Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. Further. Miles & Johnson. 2003. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 77 . since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. West et al...hostile automatic thought. Nabi et al. 2005. 1993) and.
the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. with the addition of a third psychological variable. each study explored the extent to which demographic. 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.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.1). Then. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. 78 . In Study 1C. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. aggression (see Figure 3.3). the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 1B and 1C. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. In Study 1B.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
For the purposes of the present research. 3. a separate score for internality (I). and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. In the present research. overlapping and ambiguous. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. a thought process that expects nothing. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 1994). affective.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time.2. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. Lester and Trexler (1974). Weissman.2. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. 1999). cognitive. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. For each of the five studies undertaken. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. but not chance. 25). 3. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained.
taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing.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). Lynch & Morris. Oetting. social alienation and paranoia. were also investigated. 2005). and. Bergeron & Vallerand. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. Vallières. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. 3. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 1957. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. expressed through the presence of irritability. In the present research. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. frustration. Deffenbacher. hitting or interpersonal violence.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. 2003. 1996). (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. through fighting. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . Specifically. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.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. Four separate dimensions of BIT were examined: (a) usurpation of right-of-way – representing self-reported behaviours that took the form of evasive or uncooperative manoeuvres such as speeding to get away from others.. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. characterised by excessive impatience. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 .. 1998). hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken.g.2. competitiveness. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. (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. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. and. not allowing others to merge or overtake. hit or kill another individual. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. frequent lane changing. 3. the BIT score. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.
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. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. while driving. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. to the extent of inattention conditions.3 3.2. in Study 1A. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).them (e. (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. 88 . three demographic variables (driver age. 3. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. In the resulting measure of this variable. travel frequency. Then.. 3. In the resulting measure of this variable. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. Then. and.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the influence of driving experience.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle.g.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.3.
2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. Then. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. In this study. Then. In Study 1B. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness. 3. Finally. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. the influence of driving characteristics. three demographic variables (driver age.3. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Then. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Finally. 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.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. In this study. 3. travel frequency. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. three demographic variables (driver age. Figure 3. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency. Figure 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the influence of driving characteristics. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined.
and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Figure 3. Figure 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. 90 . the influence of experience. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. First.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Finally. 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. Then. Then. 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. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation.3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. and (b) taxi experience. In Study 3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. This was justified for three reasons. In Study 3.
1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .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. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H188.8.131.52: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.2. 3.2.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on 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. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1. Third. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.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 H2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. Second.
2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H184.108.40.206: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3: 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: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.Table 3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H220.127.116.11: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.
1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. using the same procedures as in Study 1. within a 14-month period.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.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.5 3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.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 in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.
2 Research Instruments 3. I try to urge its driver to move 94 .2.g. 3.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. by postal mail. Stokals & Campbell. while participants were driving. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. 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. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. For inclusion in the study. In all cases. Stokols. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. 1978)..1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. in the case of Study 3 participants. Data collection took place within the taxicab.5.5. Novaco. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. during a point to point trip.
to school or to an appointment with someone. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.80. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . In a later study.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. with a coefficient alpha of .91) were found to be internally consistent. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.2.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.” “On a clear highway. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Freeway urgency 14 III.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” II. On each form. as indicated in table 3. Table 3.
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. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).5. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. 96 . A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 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 “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.2. 3. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. References to the faster.
4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. if endorsed.” “If I’m angry enough. Of the 20 true-false statements. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “When people annoy me.5. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. and five subscales measure physical aggression. 3. Durham.” “When someone really irritates me. 2005. Table 3. 1993. 1996).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. Tanaka et al. I may tell them what I think of them.2. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. anger. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Beck et al. or 0.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.3. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. I might give him or her the silent treatment.” 97 . hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.5. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. if not. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.3). High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 1974).” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. 1982. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.” “I get into fights more than most people. I may mess up someone’s work.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.2. 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”. verbal aggression.
92.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 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. Boyd. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .71 to . 3. age. Shapiro. derogation of others and revenge respectively.” “I want to get back at this person. 1996).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.4). Table 3.2.2. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.5. Williams. Snyder et al.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. 1997. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Cascardi & Pythress.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. . 2000). 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. gender.5.” 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 1997. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Three factors – physical aggression. 98 . 5 = “all the time”).91 for physical aggression.88 and . Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. with coefficient alpha values of .
Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. Levenson. BIT scale. BHS.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. In studies 1 and 2. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. with an e-mail summary of results. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. BIT scale and AQ. BHS. 99 . (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires.6.3. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. AQ and HAT. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. (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. BHS. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. Study 1C: PIF. upon request. between the two forms of the BIT. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. After the briefing period.6 3. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Study 1B: PIF. Levenson and BIT scale. Levenson. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. in random order.
research assistants verbally administered the PIF. rel. 3. Over the course of the trip. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 8. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Independent-sample t-tests.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows.6. BIT. Data collection took place in taxicabs.0. 2004). This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. The PIF was always administered first.2 Study 3 For study 3. At initial contact. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. 2002). Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Two to four times daily. as well.5. For safety reasons. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. aged 22 to 24 years.3. Levenson Locus of Control scale. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 13. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.5. analyses of variance (ANOVA). rel. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. 100 . each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. four female final-year undergraduate students. AQ and Levenson scales. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.
2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.Table 3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.3: 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: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .
2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. 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 H9.3: 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: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: The higher the Internality.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.Table 3.4: 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: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 . the higher the BIT level H8.
locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. In the present study. 103 . locus of control.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 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.Table 3. hopelessness.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. When significant differences were observed.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 H15.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. hopelessness. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. In the present research.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3.7. 2000). 3.
4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and.3 The 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. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.3. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. 3. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. In the present research. 3. 104 . multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. In the present research. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. second. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.7. Also. hopelessness. For instance. hopelessness. if so. In the present research.
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. 3. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. 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). SEM was carried out. on the other hand.7 Structural Equation Modelling.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. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. That is.7. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. using LISREL. logistic regression. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. In the present research. 710). these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. In the present research. 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. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred.7.3.
the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. in fact. 1998) – presently exists. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. According to Marsh et al. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). 1998). (1988). Thus. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. 745). For Study 1C. 2006. In the present research. (Hair et al. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. including: (1) two absolute indexes.. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). the better the model is said to fit.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. p.
validation index (ECVI). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). one incremental index.. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. pp. However.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al.7. Thus. 1998. an insignificant p-value is expected. 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. the ratio indicates a good fit.7. 1998). 112).7.0. 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. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.3 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. 2006). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7.7.10 indicate poor fit. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. and a measure of parsimony fit. 3. 3. Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI). 107 .00 in which values greater than .7. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 2006). the higher the probability associated with χ2.
4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.. Values range from zero to 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 3. 3.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. with higher values indicating better fit.00 with value closes to 1. 108 . Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00. an RMR greater than .7.00. 2006).Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. 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.7. The index ranges between zero and 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available.00. The index can range from zero to 1.00 with value more than . Bentler & Bonnet.00 being indicative of good fit.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. Thus. 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. Tanaka & Huba.7. the normed fit index (NFI. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.7.
It should be noted that. Values range between zero and 1. Mulaik & Brett. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. Browne & Cudeck.00. 2006). means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. Although values range from zero to 1. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.7. James. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. 3. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. p.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. Like other parsimony fit indices. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.7..00. 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. In such cases.7. 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.3. 1994). 2006. considering its fit relative to its complexity. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 750). in this case. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 109 .7.
05. In this case. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. 1956). the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 37).7. 3. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 1976). 1976. p. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 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.7. it is said to be positively skewed.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. in this case.3. 2000). If the opposite holds. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.
Marcoulides & Hershberger. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 111 . Barrett & Morgan. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. A commonly used guideline is that. 2005. 1997).normality of variable distributions.
Table 4.5% 6. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.13 years (SD = 1. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.6% 15.3% 8.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1: 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. 4.5% 27.1. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1% 34.1 Description of the Samples Age. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.1% 121 22.1% 536 100% 54. with a mean age of 20.6% 12.1).1 4.4% 333 62.9% Total 441 100% 45. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.1% 562 57.9% 14. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.5% 57.6% 82 15.4% 146 14.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.4% 269 27.55).9% 23. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). Then.
89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20. 149 taxicab drivers participated.01 years (SD = 1. range of 18 to 26). range from 18 to 25).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 27). In Study 3. In Study 2.35.9 per cent).5 per cent). In Study 1A. range from 18 to 29).68. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.63. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1C.53. with a mean age of 20. Thus. 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.43 years (SD = 1. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. followed by Malay (27. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. with a mean age of 19.25 years (SD = 1. In Study 1B. 113 . with a mean age of 20.
68 1.3: 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. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.7 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.3% of the sample. Johor or Perak made up 53.89 20. Table 4.19 S. range from 23 to 73).2: Age.01 20. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. The mean age was 43.D.25 43.1.2. 1.3 11.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.9 2.65.35 1.53 1.65 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 .5 8.3).43 19. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. Kuala Lumpur.2 7.63 11.19 years (SD = 11. SD = standard deviation 4. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.5 114 .1 6. Table 4.4% of the sample.
7 11.7 100 4.4 0.9 0.5 1.0 10.4).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 % 13.4 4.9 7. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9% of the sample.1 9.0 7.1.7 3.2 3.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.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.6 100 4.2 2.6 1.8 11.2 17. Table 4.8 9. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.8 5. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1% of the sample.5 14.6 2.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. Perak or Penang made up 50. As the sample was 115 .1.
2000). 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 1978). In the present research.2 4. 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.2.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.5). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. 4. 116 .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. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.
749 .718 .737 .727 .786 .714 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .783 .701 .782 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .720 .747 .830 .772 α .781 .788 .740 .782 .734 .910 .904 .817 .702 .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 .715 .808 .739 .741 .703 .827 .783 .707 .811 .Table 4.735 .887 .774 .906 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .784 .733 .808 .810 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .881 α .824 .740 .742 .738 .730 .756 .754 .711 .715 .798 .720 .890 .727 .
confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. only Form A was used. 1998).802 4. 1998).805 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.804 .801 .804 Study 1C .80.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.10 indicate a mediocre fit.953 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. 205).10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.916 . 1998). fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.811 .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 .05 indicate good fit. 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. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 1998.08 to .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. depending on which is used (Byrne. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.807 .2. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.857 . Table 4. more than .804 .958 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p.903 . 118 .808 Study 2 .4. RMSEA values less than .80 or above). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.2.807 Study 1B . Byrne. values ranging from .806 .803 .800 . In Study 3. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. with minimal error variance caused by wording.929 . 1985).876 . and those greater than .6.
parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.000 .077 .000 .024 .96 .097 .97 1.98 . freeway urgency.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.00 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.97 .00.3.92 .00 1.00 .000 .92 1.91 .054 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 1. externally-focused frustration.97 1.90.99 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 1. 1992).00 (the closer to 1.047 .048 .000 .000 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.097 .95 1. and destination-activity orientation.96 .93 .99 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 .00 .00 1. 4.00 .96 1. indicating good fits.000 .098 .91 .98 1.070 . the higher the goodness-of-fit). drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. Table 4.000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .100.98 1.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. it is possible to have negative GFI.00 1. A third statistic. As shown in Table 4.99 .061 . If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.7: 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 1.7.98 .96 .92 .089 .99 .00 .074 .00 1.000 .2.90.99 .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 .
CFA revealed that parameter values for I. indicating good fits (See Table 4.052 .95 .096 .97 .083 .085 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).073 .93 .93 .071 .000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.030 .93 .93 . RMSEA values were less than .96 .96 .98 .92 .99 .95 1.2.92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.059 . anger (ANG).98 .97 .98 .93 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).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) .93 .3.99 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).91 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.4. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .92 .058 .2.081 . verbal aggression (VER).98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.3.100. and both GFI and CFI were more than .081 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.91 .00 .96 . Table 4.8.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .091 .93 .90.95 .063 .085 .96 .
100. Table 4.97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 .098 .98 .98 .088 .98 .089 .98 .070 .096 .9).083 .058 .2.97 .96 .90. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.100. derogation of others and revenge.081 .97 .96 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.055 .97 .90.97 .98 .97 .96 . RMSEA values were less than .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .94 .97 .088 .10).98 .098 .93 .95 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.025 .090 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression . indicating good fits (See Table 4.92 .98 . RMSEA values were less than . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.070 .98 .98 . Table 4.98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).095 .047 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.(IND).081 .99 .97 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .97 .92 .98 .94 .95 . indicating good fit (see Table 4. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.073 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .3. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .
280) -. 2005.183) 1.560(.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .057) 1.091(.140) -.920(.280) .140) -.140) .410(.105 (.064(.010 (.179(.204(.190) 1.323 (.140) -.179(.356 (.280) .560(.107 (.069) 1.085) 1.154(.140) -.080(.140) .280) . 1997).241(.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 1.260) .3 Normality.140) -.192) 1.256 (.102) 1.403(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.106) 1.05).11: Normality Tests.409(.091(.719(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.280) .239 (.280) -.020 (.099(.297 (.140) -.203(.140) -.280) -.140) .099) 1.140) -.195 (.186) 1.280) . 2006).11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.962 (.183) 1.140) -.126(.278(..140) -.280) -.331(.297(.875(..280) .192(.511(.582(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.034 (.280) .064) 1. Table 4.226 (.140) -.099) 1.140) .146(. In all cases.280) -.091) 1.085 (.280) .188(.280) .126(.140) .428) .140) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.107) 1.120) 1.064(.052) 1.280) -. Table 4.099(.453(.278(.351 (.379(.246(.297(.805(.219 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.656(.140) .353(.191) 1.408(.4.280) .094 (.280) -.140) .085 (.280) .085) 1.082 (.280) -.409(.022 (.280) -.332 (.037(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.140) .
153) .128) .147(.443(.057) 1.030(.210) -.106 (.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 .279 (.259) .219) -.219) -.414(.360) .244(.210) .417) -.451(.812(.138(.210) .841(.913 (.138) 1.884(.157) .266 (.306) .153) 983(.186(.959 (.423(.247) .510) 1.962 (.154) -.807 (.153) .003 (.435) -.321) 1.153) .719(.911 (305) 1.106(.247) 1.417) -.973(306) .022 (.276(.469) 1.153) .271(.426) .007(.847 (.295(.306) -.822 (.070 (.006(.219) .052) 1.267) .297 (.159(.219) .629(.306) .024 (.153) .210) .417) -.417) -.128 (.219) .306) -.265) 1.153) -.153) .366(.417) .952(.306) -.986 (.913(.153) .147(.501(.156(.467(.324(.503(.110 (.048(.417) -.360) .306) -.359 (.264) .024 (.276 (.435) .435) -.153) .053(.219) -.713(.338 (.948(.681(.098) 1.210) -.306) .001 (.435) -.567(.300(.142(.210) .130(.153) -.362(.366) 1.919 (.715(.195 (.567(.153) .972(.417) -.135) 1.214) 1.463(.236(.435) -.979(.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 1.360) .435) -.327 (.852(.417) -.417) .011 (.064) 1.256(.354 (.962(.210) .198(.187) 1.131(.478(.435) -.306) .099) 1.098) 1.106(.417) .978(.113 (.277(.497(.317) 1.062(.210) -.306) -.104) 1.053(.051) 1.101) 1.360) -.219) .417) -.915(.210) .102) .537(.153) .435) -.153) .392(.306) -.120(.375) 1.994(.852(.052) 1.270) 1.Table 4.209(.640(.160 (.540(.940(.533) .306) .022 (.293 (.084) 1.210) .799(.805 (.153) .223 (.051) .100) .417) .370(.359 (.210) .088 (.219) .
4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.4. For motorcycle drivers.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.13). Table 4. column a). column b). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.12. 124 . (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.12. column c). if so. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. However. injury occurrence was much higher.12. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. with 44.3 per cent being hospitalised.
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 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.Table 4. Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two 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 .14) Regardless of ethnic background.
However.15 shows means. Table 4. Study 1C.17 shows means. freeway urgency. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Also. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. All these correlations were significant (p<.05). Table 4. Study 1B. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.05).05). it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. externally-focused frustration. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. 126 . 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. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. crash occurrence and crash injury.16 shows means.4.5 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).5. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. in Study 1B. 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.
280** .129* .376** .211** .3455 .152** .D.901** .340** .316** .15: Means.396** .97 43.471** .186** .201** .533** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .391** -.191** .716** .218** .5 5.476 .69 24.625** .482** . 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.96 19.376** .88 7.516** 1 -.818** 1 .45 6.027 1 .371** .239** .942** 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.246** .2691 6.23 2.553** -.08 2.036 .209** 1 .388** .442 1 -.434** .405** .78 .544** -.306** .513** .416** 1 .64 7.435** .147* .57 4.58 .662** 1 .339** .00 165.345** 1 -.155** .804** .Table 4.749** .202** .22 3.04 26.231** .147* -.342** -.278** .52 34.381** .566** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .76 3.562** -.247** .44 4.
254** .D.00 14 19.363** .331** .271** .9 13 46.195** .491** .542** .342** .172** .97 4 4.347** 1 -.91 15 27.555** .335** .089 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.148* .411** .763** .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 .355** .82 7 13.407** 1 -.445** .85 9.372** .140* .56 2 4.489**.779** 1 -.4624 1 -.039 .22 4.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .213** .275** .514** .520** .378** .762** .584** -.06 3 2.173* .254** .66 3.55 9 21.418** .386** .515** .051 .157** .393** .408** .334** .279** .491** .278** 1 -.443** .688**.921** .150** .236** .286* .444** .319** .331** .16: Means.5695 .481** .240** .3079 .41 3.697** 1 .69 8.343** .028 -.167** .438** 1 .276** .523** .358** .9 12 71.84 7.855** .380** .401** .376** .669** 1 -.337** .178** .964** 1 .200** .505** .294** 1 .298** .213** .067 -.254** .509** .9 28.Table 4.440**.43 12.369** .071 .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .268** .338** .842** 1 .172** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.587** 1 -.400** .213** .448** .382** 1 -.159 -.162** .462** .452** .341** .60 10 16.516** .355** .434** .731** .103 -.028 .50 5.496** .602** 1 .461** .380** .147** .414** .272** .550** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .86 6.176* .531** .521** .366** .25 8 18.353** .003 .430** .225** .310** .518** .4960 17 .84 5.847** .153** .343** .324** .099 .816** .403** .5 6 17.48 5.355** .463** .312** 1 -.14 4.45 5 87.540** .103 -.816** .53 19.48 3.013 1 .586** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.
275** .49 6.86 -.451** .167** .057 .545** .103** .356** .70 8.166** .502** .186** .641** 1 4 4.292** .051 .178** .131* .412** .306** .465** .534** 1 18 19.185** .293** .106 .03 -.518** .075 .271** .37 6.101**.304** .246** .307**.-181** .268**.150* .58 9.404** .016 .338** .395** 1 11 65.286** .368** .254** .501 .296** .218** .18 -.370** .311** .7 -.278** .304** .17 -.373** .9 -.130** .258** .483** .259** .31 -.281** .263** .05 -.162**.150* .531** 1 10 16.281** .402** .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 .516 .81 5.296** .224**.98 4.038 .250** .80 17.725** .261** .277** 1 8 19.377** .306** .212** .323** .235** .42 3.89 5.324** .224** .119* 1 21 .254** .402** .506** .70 3.895** 1 13 26.202** .67 7.97 -.294** .345** .259** .241** .199** .340** .264** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .275** .7 28.D.305** .17: Means.434** .735** .508** .314** .219** .241** .291** .615** .252** .302** .202** .401** .38 5.081 .64 -.235** .199**.78 8.229** .230** .137* .192** .364** .378** .181** .095 .70 1 2 4.203** .448** .565** .003 .383** .270** .422 -.446** .141* .52 7.364**.189** .348** 1 6 16.423** .856** 1 17 43.148** .288** .357** .120 .277** .Table 4.191** .210** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.033 .355** .298** .209** .221** .277**.192**.183** .366** .227** .292** .230** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.110 .343** .310** .183** .109 .082 .428** .03 5.230 .226** .454** .151* .749** .245** .228** .069 .31 3.413** .191** 1 3 .251** .320** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.151* .862** .166** .484** .838** .804** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .745** 1 7 13.476** .354** 1 5 88.342** .196** .85 19.158** .481** .367** .530** .139** .588** 1 14 20.308** .228** .81 -.216** .422** 1 9 22.222** .526** .278** .174** .193**.9 -.747** .00 -.390** .36 -.379** .296** .8 -.387** .270** .109 .313** .592** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .456** .424** 1 12 18.265** 1 19 25.076 .221** .11 12.349** 1 16 67.385** .91 -.095 .392** .210**.343** .69 -.189** .17 -.183** .
and destination-activity orientation. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.5. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration. all BIT subscales.18 shows means. However.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. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. 130 . All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. Similar to observed results in study 1A. freeway urgency. standard deviations and relationships between distal. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 4.
758** 1 .349** .630** .325** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.035 3.043 .259** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .55 175.334** .313** 1 .165 .356** .025 -.18: Means.291** .122 7.264** .251** .876** .323 23.371** -.76 48.367** .314** .139 .183* 1 .880 .5738 8.4683 .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.111 -.614** .201* .750** .6803 .028 1 .081 8.150 -.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .4966 1 .212* .240** .167 .485 11.30 .621 3.D.200* -.179 7.418** .413** 1 .376** .917 3.072 .192* -.383** .48 5.580** 1 .14 27.Table 4.562** 1 .500** .535** 1 .415** .290** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .232** .66 1.413** .941** 1 .269** .66 5.226** .50 73.374** .219** .233** .317** .409** .06 20.428** .
3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 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. In general.5.4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 1C and 2. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. 1B. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. standard deviations and relationships between distal. In this study. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.19 shows means. As indicated in Table 4. Differing from Studies 1A.19. However. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. 132 . correlations between I and distal.
197* .401** -.749** .275** .128 .276** .378** 1 .292** .032 1 .117 .180** .091 .229** .454** .172** .103 .222* .178** .149 .255** .194* 1 .32 7.271** .213** . 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 12.213** .D.152 .153** 1 .853** .373** .74 15.521** .816** .12 4.151 -.289** 1 .35 11.88 1 .141 .028 .45 19.150** .194* .54 11.147** .528** 1 .071 .42 66.418** .092** .65 75.109 -.054 .06 2. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.604** .19: Means.404 .246** .576** .121 .235** .225** .08 15.166 .061 .05 3.618** 1 .263** .324** .807** .658** .721** .257** .114 .218* .060 .161 -.443** 1 .11 15.240** .120 .245** .643** .070 -.588** 1 .156 .254** -.013 .018 -.020 .067 .Table 4.82 5.286* 1 .236** .148* .072 .240** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .2000 .167** .261** .177 1 .338** 1 .235** .4 5.99 10.3 6.121 .025 -.182* -.156 .31 8.10 1.51 3.43 8.039 .200* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .234** .171 .07 8.030 .32 3.17 20.165 .173* .023 .112 -.872** .561** 1 .117 .204* .84 2.13 3.0301 .072 -.095 .149 .040 .116 .106 .060 -.268** .193* -.82 11.622** .15 32.646** .117 .636** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .091 -.048 .371** .023 -.864** 1 .
p<.01 B=.063.041.01 134 .088 p<.01 B=.01 B=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.1.4 was not supported. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.3 inclusive. freeway urgency.18.104.22.168: 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=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. p<.01 B=.135.04.01 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<.1). p<. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.090.063. Table 4.01 Study 1B B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.125. p<. p<.034.20). These results supported H1.229.238. p<.01. p<.1 through H1.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01).146.117.01 and Study 3: B=. p<.01. and externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.01.048.1. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.080. p<. Study 1C: B=. Study 2: B=.180. p<. p<.6. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=. For the destination-activity factor.1. p<. 4. p<. p<.278. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. These results supported H1. p<. H1.172.095.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.315.4.01 B=.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.102. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.095.
freeway urgency.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 and Study 2: B=. p<.01 B=. p<.054. These results supported H1.118.01).01 B=.140.01 B=.21). p<. Table 4. Study 1C: B=.120.064.158.035. p<.087.21: 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=. 135 .01 B=.091. Study 1B: B=.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. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.6. p<.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. p<.01 Study 1C B=. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. respectively). p<.01.035. 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=.23 and Table 4. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.24.2.01 B=.22.038.069.01 B=.01 B=.075 p<. p<.033 p<.01.074.01 B=. p<. p<.05 Study 1B B=.165.01 B=.095.059.019. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Table 4.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.
43 20.32 28.64 27.32 147.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.Table 4.92 157.64 26.35 4.25 25.23: 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<.01.16 3.98 171.88 28.44 178.35 33.31 161.15 161.35 155.60 185.22: 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<.98 33.35 24.50 28.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.600** Table 4.73 170.06 19.29 21.25 5. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168. * p<.05.77 165.184** 136 .56 175.77 8.89 21.03 25.48 171.52 25.41 167.82 168.82 33.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.68 26.30 22.
drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.25).06 8.060** In Study 1A.01).345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15.01).01).73 157. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.Table 4. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.12 161. * p<.01 14. On the other hand.88 167.00 16. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.39 19.81 167. In Study 2.61 165.05).05). In Study 1B.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<. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.06 160.52 3. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.14 15. about once every two weeks (p<.73 24.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. 137 .01).12 154.77 16.00 14. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.05).01.05.53 17.01). and those who almost never travelled (p<. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. In Study 1C.
* p<.920 (N.60 72.94 20.64 24.S) Therefore.381 10.316 1.58 188. However.05.82 162.01.52 172.50 24. However.528** In Study 3.437 (N.26 10. In other words. N.47 5.26: 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<.65 73. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.Table 4. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.55 73.33 78.26).55 10. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .09 15. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.25: 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<.01. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.74 77.27 14.63 1.05. N.80 22.68 20.62 10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.56 3.37 9.71 168.31 2.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.89 20.81 22. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.31 78.859 11. 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. * p<. Table 4.81 161.97 8.S.81 175.S.753* 38 48 27 20 77.50 184.
Again. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.2. ethnicity and age – were investigated. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. only H2. In Studies 1A. 139 . In Study 2.1 and H2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.2. For ethnicity. ANOVA results for age. 1C and 2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. however. In Study 3.6. In this case. 1B. the lower was the total BIT score. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 4.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. only H2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.been predicted by H2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. though. Contrary to the subhypothesis. 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.1 was confirmed.27). 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.
01 F=9. p<.S.56. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.S.01 F=.05 F=4. H3.99. p<.05).98. N. N. Study 1B t=2. p<. 1C and Study 2. In Study 1C.1 and H3.68. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. p<. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1.01). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.6. 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.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. N. In Study 3.44. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). however.74. In all studies. p<. 4. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<.01 F=2.01 F=1.05 F=11. In Study 1B. Therefore.53.81.S. p<.2 was confirmed. In Study 1B. male 140 . Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.12. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.00.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.2 were confirmed. Study 2 t=3.9.562. N.66. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.S. H3.3 was not supported.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. In Study 1A and Study 2.01 F=19. p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.05).62.Table 4. t(250) = 2. Study 1C t=3. p<.05. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).01 F=8.
F(2. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05). F(2. p<.05 and F(2. 299) = 3.01.05 respectively. 141 .01 respectively. 1C.05.01). 249) = 3. F(2. p<.05 and p<. 298) = 6. 298) = 3.566. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.503. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. t(299) = 2.05 respectively.01). Consistent with findings in Study 1A. E and P scores. 299) = 5. In Study 2.476.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. F(2.01 respectively). In Study 1B. 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<.527. For Studies 1A. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05). p<. In Study 1C.462.041. p<. In Study 1A. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. 298) = 3.370.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05. 119) = 5. p<.490.941. p<. p<. 1B.05 and F(2.
p<. so H4.079. H4. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. t(120) = 2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. In Study 1. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. in Study 2. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.1.2. H5. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.2 and H22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.3.Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. 1B or 1C.6.2 and H4.01). that age influences hopelessness. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.3 were supported.1. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. However. were supported.05.3 was supported.1. H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. H4. Therefore. H5. 4.3.3. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.2. 142 . Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.3 were not supported. H4. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. In addition.1 and H5. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.
01. p<. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. p<. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.341.1. In Study 2. p<.342. was not supported. p<.01 and B = . respectively).3.4. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.2 and H6. H6. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.254.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively). In Study 1B.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.186. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.354.01 and (B = .28). H6. were supported. 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. Therefore. that internality would influence hopelessness.01.01 and B = .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 respectively).01.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.239.6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6. 143 .312. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.306.1.6. p<.01 and B = . no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. were supported. respectively).3.2 and H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.290. H6.254. In Study 1C. p<.371. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.
p<.05).01 Study 1B B=.01 B=. N.1.2.247. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .275. p<.349.247. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.191. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .01). p<.05 B=.01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .232.275.01).099. p<.141. p<. p<. p<.01 B=.3 and H7. freeway urgency (B = .191.4.280.151. p<.01 B=.232. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.157. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.287. p<.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. the higher the hopelessness scores.05 B=.01 B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.Table 4. p<.05). In Study 2. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B =.151.317.05 Study 1C B=. p<.317. 1C and 2. In Study 1B. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. was supported in Studies 1A.280. p<.415.349. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . H7.157. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. H7. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.153.05).415.141. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.01).418. p<. p<. B=.151. p<.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.288. In Study 1C.05) but not for freeway urgency.287. H7. p<.01).151.278.254. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. externally-focused frustration (B = . Therefore.01 B=. 144 . p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = . p<. p<.01).01). p<.05 Study 2 B=.S.200.01 B=.01 B=.05 In Study 1A.153.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores.254.
motorcycle and taxicab drivers). p<. 145 . p<.229.208. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.239. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3. With regard to H8. Table 4. provided support for hypothesis H8.01 B=-.625.01 B=.2. p<. p<. N.6.29). p<. H8.S.01 B=.006. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.1.S.168. p<.4.336. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=-. p<. B=.2. Therefore. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. where only H8. N.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=-. H8. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.01 B=-.01 B=.01 B=. N. p<. B=. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.1.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.S.178.1 and H8. that the higher the subscale score for I. the lower were mean total BIT scores. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. but not H8.01 B=.297.01 B=-.1.077.2 and H8.044. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.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. p<.3. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.315.753.05 B=.339.388. With regard to H8. H8.
01 respectively (see Figure 4. Further. p<. 146 .01 and F=8.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. =8. F=7. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.581.2). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.909.01 (see Figure 4. 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. F=4.710. In Study 1C.1). it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. p<. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. p<.704. F=4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. p<.1).05.272. p<.
R2=.034.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.033.00 62.00 64.6.05. First.00 MalaysianIndian 70. in Study 2.444.05.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. However. p<.00 68. p<.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.282. 1B and 1C. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=-. multiple regression showed mixed results. 147 .327. B = . F=4. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 66.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.3). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.
01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. F=18.070. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.01. Kurtosis=-. B = .167.371).608. 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.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.4).3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.459.463. p<. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. p<.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .
p<. p<.30). However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.467.1. and H9.01 t=-. p<.480.603. t= .187. p<. 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. t(300) = 2. p<.S.032. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . Table 4. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.05 t=4.521. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. In Study 1B and Study 3. the H9. N. p<.780. were supported. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.05 t=.01 t=2.05 Study 1C t=2. N.01 t=2. 249) = 5.S t=2. p<. N. p<.603. With motorcycle drivers. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. In Study 1C.210.298.820. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. p<. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. In both studies.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=2.05 respectively.S t=1.690. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. N. and t(250) = 2. however.S t=2.31).01 t=4. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. 1C and 3.690.01 (see table 4.164.01.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. F(126.96.36.1997. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.Therefore.
Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. p<. 150 .S. N.57. N. N. F=1.021. 299) = 5. N. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. F(2.S.05 Study 1C F=5. Table 4. F=2.S. N. mean IND scores of Malay. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<.S. N. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. N.S. mixed results were found. F=1. 299) = 4.567. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.155.561.S.564. In Study 1C. p<.763. F(2.S. N. p<.526.01 F=.S.904. F=1. N.01. 249) = 10.31: 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=2.632.01).S.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.629.521.041.804.422. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.398. In Study 3.01).S.041. N.182.S.01). N.01 Study 3 F=1. F=1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. p<. 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. p<.01). F=2.01. F(2.01 F=2.432. F=4. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. p<. N. F=. F=5.S. In Study 1B. F=1.S F=10.S.05.432.077.
that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. were supported. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.3 and H11.2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. In Study 3.1. H10.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. H11.29).6. VER and IND subscale scores. freeway urgency.Therefore.4. were all supported. 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. In Studies 1B and 1C. H10.3 and H11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. 151 . respectively. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. However. 4. H10.32). that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. only H11. Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. The higher the total aggression scores. freeway urgency. H11.4. however. 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. was supported. H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.
Study 1C and Study 3. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.216. p<.229.01 and B = .01.01 B=.01. Study 2 and Study 3.505.565. B = . p<.881. B = . F=3.324.01 B=. p<. respectively. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.483. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.01 B=. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.Table 4.01 Study 1C B=.01. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.263.387. p<.263.01 and B = .520.491. and B = . p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<.428. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.121.438.01 B=. but not in Study 3. p<.S. Similarly.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.S. p<.01 respectively. 1C. p<.235. p<.540. p<. 1B. B = .385. B = . p<. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.01 B=.370.01 B=. Study 1C and Study 3. Also. respectively.01.01.370. p<.5). B=.380. p<. p<.204. p<. N. p<. but not in Study 3. However. B = . p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 B=.01 respectively. p<. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.05 B=. p<. p<. the higher were total BIT scores.545. p<.05 B=. p<. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<.01 B=.01.048.461. B = .183. 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. N.05 (see Figure 4. and B = .01 Study 3 B=.
100.01.961.00 44.316.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. for Study 1B. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . respectively. p<.076.297. R2=. Study 1C and Study 3.131. p<. 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. and B=-. The moderating effect of I was significant.929. p<.172. R2=.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.271.00 46. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.00 42.6.6. Kurtosis=-. p<. F=100. Kurtosis=-. R2=.003. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. B=-.645. F=81.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<.00 IndianMalaysian 48.12.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. B=-.516.01.01.362.01. In other words.
Kurtosis=-.01.12. Kurtosis=-. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .757.01. p<. R2=. B = .015. Kurtosis=.6.507.387. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.015.069.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. F=78. p<.01. F=94.117.01 respectively.01 and B = .431. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.369. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<. R2=.271.109. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.897.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.6). p<. R2=.297. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. R2=.088. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.297. p<. F=71.694.360. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. respectively). Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.271.704. respectively).have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.606. 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=. In Study 1B.01. F=91. p<.794. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.
1. 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. p<. Therefore. and the moderation effect was not significant. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<. that the internality.332.01 and B = . externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . B = . and H12. H12. 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 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.2.7).302. H12. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.significant. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 respectively.3.
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. t(249)=2.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 156 . and about revenge F(2.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. However. 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<. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.343.279. p<.3. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.6.314.05. 249) = 5. p<. 249) = 4.263.01. p<. p<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. H122 and H12.01). There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. 4. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.05). Only H12.05). t(250) = 3.01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.05. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.01. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.885. 248) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. F(2.1. Also. p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.737.
p<.277.01.394.2 and H14.1 and H13. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<. H13. p<. were supported. H13. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.1. p<. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. was partially supported. p<.01 and B = . This means that. freeway urgency. B = .01. (that thoughts about physical aggression. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.01. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.413. the higher were total BIT scores.364. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. H14. This means that.192. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.01 and destination-activity orientation. B = . that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.Therefore. Therefore. were supported.307.01. p<.3. 157 . linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. the higher the total HAT scores. was supported. on total BIT score were also tested. p<. 4. was not supported. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.379. H14. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.3. B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. p<.01. externally-focused frustration.6. respectively.01. B = .2. B = .224. B = .
The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.297. p<.-554. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.565.188. Kurtosis=.002.6. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. In other words.8). Kurtosis=.013.01. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. 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. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.4. Physical Aggression and Revenge. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.085). R2=. B = .01.297.072).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.911. F=57.05. F=55. 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<.809. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.
3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.01. F=59. was supported. p<. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01.01. were supported.026. B = . Normality Residuals: Skewness=.246. H15.092).294. was not supported. p<. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6. R2=.297.33).Aggression was significant. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kurtosis=. Therefore. 4.207.2. However.475. 159 . and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<.1 and H15. B = . The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. H15.
188.8.131.52: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 160 .3.2.S N.S S S N.S N.S S N.S N.Table 4.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S S P.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1.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 3 P.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S N.S N.S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S N.1.S S S S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4. S N.S P.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S N.S P.S S S N.S S S S P.2.S S S N.S P.S S N.S S S S S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S.S 1C P.S S S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.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 P.S S S N.S S S S S S N.
S N.S P.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S 161 .S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5. N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S S S N.S 1B N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S S S S S P.S N.S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S= Partially Supported.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S S S N.S 2 N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.S S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S S N.S P.S P.3.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 H7.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S P.S N.S P.S S S N.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 H9.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.S N.S 3 N.Table 4.S N.S= Not Supported.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S S S S S S P.3. P.S P.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.
2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S S S S P.S S N. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S 162 .3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S 2 3 P.S P.S S S N.S S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Not Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11. P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported. N.S N.Table 4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S= Partially Supported.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.
Externality Chance (C). 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .00000 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Table 4. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. F3 F1. P. 163 .93 .34. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F4 F1. C. BHS. F3.102 .00000 . F4 F1. F4 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.05522 .97 63.58 35. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F4 χ2 49.g. HAT I. F4 F1. BHS. AQ. F3. BHS I. F3. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. C.00000 . F3.7.087 . freeway urgency.4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C.00111 .96 . HAT I.93 . F2. Hopelessness. freeway urgency (F2). externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F2. 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. P I. P.97 .093 . F2. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. P. P.80 104. AQ. Hopelessness (BHS). two were worthy of further examination. AQ I. Study 2: motorcycle driver.02 d.90 110. 2002).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.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. Externality Powerful-Other (P). F3. 4. C.060 Note: Internality (I).1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. C.068 . e. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.00126 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. AQ. HAT Proximal Factors F1.96 RMSEA .93 . F2. C.045 . F2. P.38 100. Aggression (AQ). F2.f.
. .23 respectively (see Figure 4. d.51 and PGFI=.96.10).35.42. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. RMSEA=.94.060.14. For Model C6. To aid this discussion.13.destination-activity orientation (F4).29 and .043. of the BIT score.043. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.98). For Model C5. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. Externality (Powerful-Other). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.02.5. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. values were: NFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.97.97.32. . goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. ECVI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.3. d. Externality (Powerful-Other).f. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. 164 . goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. RMR=.045. . AGFI=. C6. 5.92) on accident involvement. GFI=. CFI=. ECVI=.91. CFI=. but not as good as for C5.97. and PGFI=. Externality (Chance). For Model C184.108.40.206. with path coefficients = -. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. AGFI=. .10). For Model C5. which are detailed in sect. RMR=.=33.f.28 and .92) on accident involvement. RMSEA=.48. with path coefficients = -.22 respectively (see Figure 4.96. GFI=. An alternate model. Externality (Chance).99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.=24.
BITF2=Freeway Urgency.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.58* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.79* . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.29* Aggression (AQ) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .97 d.f =24 CFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .57* Injury Occurrence .32* Externality (Chance) .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.97 GFI=.51* . *p<.63* .92* Accident Involvement .045 RMR=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.99 P-value = .
BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.77* .96 d.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .39* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.58* Injury Occurrence .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.63* .f =33 CFI=. *p<.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 GFI=.31* Externality (Chance) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.56* .92* Accident Involvement .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .29* Aggression (AQ) .50* .98 P-value = .060 RMR=.
HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG. ANG. It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT). freeway urgency (F2).95).35). VER.00000 . Aggression (AQ). F3.66).078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). Angry (ANG). ANG. F4 F1. HOS. IND.10. F4 F1.00000 .93 . RMSEA=. F3. HOS. F4 χ2 108. IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. HAT-P. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.66 131. Indirect aggression (IND). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). Hostility (HOS). HOS.080 . HAT-D. HAT-P. HAT-D. F3 F1. VER. ANG. F3. HAT-R PHY.=61. HAT-P. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.91 . HAT-D.73 169.f. F2.084 .41. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.078. HAT-P. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. 167 . HAT-R PHY.80) on the accident involvement.41 d. F3 F1. F2. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . VER. F2.00000 . d. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). IND PHY.91 .In addition. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).66 153. CFI=.00000 GFI RMSEA .13 respectively. F2.00111 .91.92 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. IND. Verbal aggression (VER).94 169.65 and .084 .081 . IND. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). path coefficients = . HAT-R PHY.91 . HAT-D.f. ANG. HOS. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. F2. GFI=.
91 d.80* Accident Involvement .95 P-value = . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .41 GFI=.62* .078 RMR=.83* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.13* Model Statistics χ2=153.61* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .63* Indirect Aggression . *p<.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.66* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .05 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.72* .65* .58* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .29* Hostility .69* Anger .f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .
Hopelessness (BHS). RMSEA=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. path coefficients = -. F2. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. F2. P. BHS I. F3 F1. d. F2.06722 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.94. Externality Powerful-Other (P).65 and .062 Note: Internality (I). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality Chance (C). C.17631 . P I. CFI=.2 Study 2 In Study 2.f.80 respectively (see Figure 4. C.7.12). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. the participants were motorcycle drivers.98). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. freeway urgency (F2). GFI=. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).4.94 .33 33.047. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.95 . P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). p-value GFI RMSEA I.07580 .047 .36). C.=28. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.12 d. F4 39.f.66) on the accident involvement.86 23 28 23 .94 .12. 169 . 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. F3.058 . BHS F1. F4 F1. F3.
57* Internality -.12 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.88* Crash Occurrence . *p<.89* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =23 CFI=.83* BIT3 .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .047 RMR=.65* Externality (Chance) .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .70* BIT4 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.78* .99 P-value = .95 d.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.
Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). Externality Chance (ExC). GFI=. RMSEA=. I.f. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.3 Study 3 In Study 3.22 23 . AQ F1.95. F3. freeway urgency (F2).7. Internality and AQ. d. the participants were taxi drivers.027 I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. CFI=.97 . C.061 Note: Internality (I). F2. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.20 respectively (see Figure 4. 37. but not Externality.20 and . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.95).82 28 .37). path coefficients = -.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2.13).94 . C.39 21 .00524 .4. P.95 .=21.061. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F2. 171 . Hopelessness (H).39. P Proximal Factors F1. C.f. AQ F1. F3. F3. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2. P.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. C.079 Injury Occurrence I. F3. F4 50. F4 Outcomes χ2 d.35265 .93 . This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.06743 . AQ F1.59 17 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.03084 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.40) on the accident involvement.
39 GFI=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .61* BIT4 .74* -.06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.061 RMR=. *p<.13 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.20* Externality (Chance) .95 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.63* BIT3 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.95 d.39* Internality -.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.f =21 CFI=.
the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).8. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. Table 4.38). Therefore. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.39).1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. consistent with path analysis results.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. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.2 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. and. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 2 and 3 are satisfied. 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.8. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 173 . 4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.
8. where the 174 .40). Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).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. Table 4. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4.41). in Studies 1A.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. 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 4.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.
For taxicab drivers in Study 3. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. C or P and the two crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Table 4. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.
Study 2: t(421)= -4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.01.01.41: 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 4.993. Study 1A vs. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2.665. p <.426. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01. Study 1A vs.01.162. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7.9. p <.442. p <.Table 4.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.837.01. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(422)= 8.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -2.663. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). Study 1A vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. 176 .05.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.
Study 1A vs. t(986)= 5. t(986)= 7.861. p <.01.01.484. t(986)= 37. p <. Study 1A vs. Also.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. t(986)= 6.775.186. p <. t(253)= 8.977. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(986)= 3. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.704. p <.01.01. p <. Study 1C vs.01. p <. p <.433. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. 4. 177 .01. p <.614. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.926. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <.211.01.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. and to injury occurrence. and t(986)= 35.801. t(986)= 30. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(986)= 34.01. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. “freeway urgency”.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. p <.837. Study 2: t(372)= -6.9.9. t(253) = 2. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. p <.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <. p <. respectively. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs.01. p <.01.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.200. 4.261. Study 1B vs.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 1C vs.747.577. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.402.01. p <.687. Study 2: t(372)= -7.01.
01. p <. t(253)= 11.01.982.01and to injury occurrence. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. 178 .016. respectively. t(253)= 8.881. t(253)= 39. and t(253)= 37.977. p <.946.567. p <. t(253)= 31. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.737.01. p <.01.01. Also. t(253)= 8. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. “freeway urgency”. p <. t(253)= 35.
upon examination. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. freeway urgency. 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. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.4. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. Elander et.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. They found gender. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. 1991). in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. (1993). 1993. 1995. 2002b). Often.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Evans. 2.1). human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Elander et al. al. including gender. In an earlier study. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.2. multi-factorial perspective. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics..
in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. if different. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. In the contextual mediated model. As a result. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. All too often. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. is that factors interact with each other. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. But findings were more complex than that. In the present research. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. though. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. the proximal variable. hopelessness. 180 . BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. BIT. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. 1991). except with taxicab drivers. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. Further. In other words.total BIT score and component scores.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 220.127.116.11). 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
Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital.25 years.16.1. 20. SD=. Because of occupational demands. as well.5.2 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. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. They were also more experienced (266. SD=22.6 months as licensed drivers. SD=131. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.53. respectively).10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. there are other possible influences. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. SD=1. and 36. For taxicab drivers. For taxicab drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.3. In the present study. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.2 years. SD=1.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.63. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.hierarchy. respectively). the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. 5.1 months. Inclán. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. Of course.7 months. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. 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. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. By virtue of their age and occupation. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.01years. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . SD=11.
In an environment where career choice. financial matters and social affiliations are made. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions.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). Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. The finding that Indian- 188 . in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. rife with bureaucracy. Devashayam. corrupt practices. 2005). Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. spousal selection. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. however. along with selfpromotion skills. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. were necessary to succeed. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. 2003. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. influence peddling and status-related privileges. perhaps due as argued earlier. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. Carment (1974) also found. when compared to Canadian students.
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. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.3. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. as a group. including locus of control. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Indeed. Salih &Young. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 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. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1999. Nandy.5 million in 1991 to 11. and. by extension. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. Sendut.7 in 1996. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 1981). but two possible influences stand out. Gomez. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 1998. where Cheung et al. Again.8 million in 1996. 5. 2002. as a result.5% annually from 9. 1999. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.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. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. an internal locus of control.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 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. 1966. 1999).
Lawton & Nutter.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. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2002. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life.women’s friendship patterns. 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. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Parkinson. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2000. 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. Jenkins. 2001. Huff. by the enraged driver. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Oetting & Salvatore. 5. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Consistently. 2008. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . more recently. Miles & Johnson. Lynch. 2003. 2002). 2001) In the present research. Dukes. 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. King & Parker. Nonetheless. Clayton. 318). Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miller & Rodgers. bringing them closer together in outlook. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations.
verbal aggression and indirect aggression. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. (1996) and Deffenbacher. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . 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”). Deffenbacher. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. during such incidents. Underwood et al. Underwood et al. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. 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. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. With taxicab drivers. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. Further. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. 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. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Parker. Petrilli et al. Oetting et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make.conditions. Finland and the Netherlands. physical aggression.
and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour.strongly. The effects of aggression on behaviour. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). the world and others). however. In essence. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. Beck (1987b) hypothesised that three cognitive factors play an integral role in the way emotion affects behaviour: (a) the native triad (a negative view of self. in the samples studied here. but not when they involved the derogation of others. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. although still significantly. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . 2006). 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. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al.. Such responses. 1997). one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al.. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. as well. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. That is.
so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i.e. Language loaded with emotional content. 1987. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. like any other mental task. 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. Meichenbaum. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i.. Finally. 1994. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores. It is moderated by cognitive processes. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Novaco.are determined by chance or fate. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. but there may be more to it than that. p. and particularly with negative emotion. “in ergonomics. or self-talk. 1990. 2004.. Generally.e. Certainly. (2003). Downe & Loke. 401). in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 1979. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. true to operant learning principles. Hochschild. 1995. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1977). 193 . has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. Similarly.
they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 1996. In fact. Stein. 1993).Robbins.g. Lambie & Marcel.. Trabasso & Liwag. aggressive emotionality. p.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. 2000. 2004. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. 5. 2002. Hinojosa. Making sense of. 162). As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Martin. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Mercado & Tapia. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Dien. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. hostile automatic thoughts. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 1999. 2005). 2000. Carretie. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Watson & Wan. 2002. and attempting to exercise control over. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.5. Performance (e. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. Taylor & Fragopanagos. MartinLoeches. Tomkins. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 1997).
Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. Hair et al. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al.. who in 1970. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. EQS and AMOS. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 2006). leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. factors represented by multiple variables.434). Finally. 2006). The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. or dependent. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer.. 1998). Second. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. explain criterion.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. involved in the analysis. Structural equation modelling (SEM). The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. By estimating and removing measurement error. 2004. Karl Jöreskog. including dependent and independent variables. 2006). SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. and perhaps most important. a multivariate technique. Gavin and Hartman (2004). In addition. First. 2000). When composing a model.. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. 195 . p. According to Williams. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. 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. 2004. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. or independent variables. or latent.
It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. CFI. GFI. Shook et al. 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. In the present research.e. Sümer (2003) added that.5. 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. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Hair et al. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i.e. Williams et al. Shook. (2004) has been critical of most studies. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. the comparative fit index (CFI). Ketchen. SRMR. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. (2006). TLI. as suggested by Hair et al.5. when assessing the fits of measurement models.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. (2004) noted that. etc) 196 . Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. Therefore. and the root mean square residual were included.
08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.90.. 2001. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. As a general rule.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.. 5. At the same time. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. Hair et al. Sambasivan & Ismail. Md-Sidin. GFI. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 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.In the present research. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. 1998.g. Maruyama. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. we would argue. 2006). it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. significant p-values can be expected. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006. Fit index values (e. RMSEA lower than .. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. CFI.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. It is argued here that. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.5. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 2001. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . CFI and CFI) greater than . provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. Structural equation modelling should. 1998). 2000).
1. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. More importantly. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. destination-activity orientation. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. 88). 158). Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.7.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. However. In the case at hand. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. two structural equation models. 4. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. and practical considerations (p. Thus.3). they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 1C5 and 1C6. “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. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. as suggested by Byrne (2001). There is some support for this position in the literature.soundness.10) excluded the fourth factor. statistical. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. stating that. In some cases. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research.
043 129.48 30. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. C. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.98 0. AQ.02 0. Injury Occurrence 35. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. P. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 0.96 0.99 0.Table 5. AQ.94 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.96 1.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. C.045 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. P. F2.91 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.42 11.034 97. F2.97 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.060 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.02 0.97 1. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 0.499 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 0.909 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. 199 .
they should be dropped. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. 2006). based on the notion that each variable included may. 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. 1990. et al.42. Manstead & Stradling. while for Model 1C6. 2006. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Schwebel. in particular. Kayumov. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. 1995. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity.. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. but still acceptable. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. 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. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Storey. Reason. For practical reasons. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. However. Hair et al. Nahn & Shapiro.1). 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. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. it is 0. farther along. in this analysis.48. 1996). 200 . By selecting Model 1C5. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. goodness-of-fit.
Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. 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.g. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.1). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . 1991.14. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.28 and .28 respectively).21).26. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.5. The results suggested that the alternative model. externalitychance. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. via BIT. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. aggression.5. with five distal factors (internality.4.34) and injury occurrence (r = . In Study 1C. . This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . externality-powerful other. 2003). Sümer.35 and . externally-focused frustration. .35. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. Rothengatter.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.45). Evans.5. 2001.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . .66). externality-chance. on crash outcomes.6. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.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. crash occurrence (r = -. for automobile drivers sampled. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other.29). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and hostile automatic thoughts). They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. freeway urgency.
externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.65 and . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. externally-focused frustration. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.20) and injury occurrence (r = .5. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. had a better fit than other alternative models. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . on the other hand. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .25).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2.24). 202 . externality-powerful other and hopelessness). Results indicated that the first alternative model.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. crash occurrence (r = .80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . which sampled motorcyclists. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement.4. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. crash occurrence (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. 5.41). and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.55).23) and injury occurrence (r = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggression. externality-chance.
All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. externally-focused frustration. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. aggression). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. their crash occurrence. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. externality-powerful other. Finally. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. in turn and indirectly. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. had no significant effect on BIT scores. freeway urgency. with the sample of taxicab drivers. for the sample of taxicab drivers. hopelessness. 203 .4. had a better fit than alternative models. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. such as internality. externality-chance.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. via BIT. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.5. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other and aggression). crash occurrence.6. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. However.5. freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. For motorcyclists. as a result. Distal factors. to measure outcome. for crash outcomes. crash occurrence. with four distal factors (internality. externally-focused frustration. Results indicated that the third alternative model. externality-chance. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors.5. 4.20 and . the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. 5.3).
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. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. In the present research. 2005). an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 204 . that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. To a large extent. Huguenin. 2005. 278279).5. chosen at random from taxi stands. however. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar.6 5. 2004). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. 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. 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. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Sekaran (2003) points out. Further. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. a total of five samples were taken.
Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.2 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.55). young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.6%. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Since.In Malaysia. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. 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.6% (Study 1A: 99. Study 1C: 99. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. with a mean age of 20. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.31.2).13 years (SD = 1. in Malaysia. Selangor. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Sabah. The most populous state. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. 205 . Study 1B: 100%. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. as elsewhere. Table 5. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.2%).2% and Study 2: 99.
Table 5.5 (8) 3. Table 5.7 (14) But.300.2 (11) 12.807 733. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 3.2 (5) 0.000 Per cent of national population 26. 206 . and there are different crash frequencies in each one. Table 5.150.0 8.6 (10) 7.396.188 1.2: 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) 7.6 6.8 (6) 6.0 12.8 6. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.0 4. in this case.100.1 (7) 8.2 (1) 3.200.2 (13) 11.500 1.260.000 215.500.9 (9) 7.887. 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. Not all states have the same number of drivers.503.674 1.2 11.000 3.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.7 (2) 2. In both cases.6 2.6 5.818.880 3.5 (4) 4.2 7.000 1.004.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.4 5.3 (12) 11.387. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. For that reason.000 2.000 2.286 1.576 2.9 (3) 2.9 9.000 1.6 0.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.
55 7.22 17.19 4.026 10.36 8.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.606 24.34 11.19 7.467 25.28 3.76 3.85 1.496 187.617 10.230 266.588.093 5.91 2.68 7.46 8.4 4.774 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 12.735 165.041 92.137 698.90 5.428.84 11.92 25.251 324.212 39.34 3.88 2.88 3.45 9.13 6.24 2.63 207 .170 13.029 273.43 2.70 12.93 0.163 10.561 1.27 14.50 29.920 181.75 4.003 10.35 4.725 70.144 12.198 156.Table 5.24 0.490 525.96 3.768 6.98 0.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.19 3.37 3.05 2.16 2.104 6.600 135.064 9.89 3.785 393.635 1.93 9.20 12.97 12.70 3.
170 13.467 25.617 10.33 4.03 4.995 233.112 347.37 3.74 208 .725 70.66 11.45 2.144 12.36 8.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.59 12.679 90.768 6.63 11.64 2.989 6.43 2.79 13.561 1.22 3.992 776.656 821.98 0.82 9.283 770.27 14.48 1.288 444.212 39.63 13.46 14.722 255.92 25.14 7.10 9.64 1.28 3.93 7.93 9.88 2.003 10.88 3.958 % 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 12.38 4.221 36.4 4.02 7.49 0.59 1.35 4.615.305 276.75 5.15 5.49 12.727 161.02 10.026 10.856 310.76 3.104 6.46 5.Table 5.064 9.20 15.029 273.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.38 0.606 24.133 705.
at least. participants came from – or.3 and 5. it can be argued that they were.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . it is possible to say that sampling.903** .814** 1 . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. At least on these dimensions. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn.4. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.824** . Table 5. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Of course. was representative of a high risk driver population.Table 5.
2001). accidents. 1979). 1998.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Rothengatter. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . Again. Hatakka. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost.6. attitudinal factors. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. violations and accidents should be linked together. Exposure. 296). however. the data has to be disaggregated.. unless the variation within the group is very small. e. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. demographic factors. 5.g. in studying driving behaviour. as in other psychological research. However. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. Much important data is available in official statistics. 1998. Elander et al. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Keskinen. accident distributions by age. The problem.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons.
though. in studies of driving behaviour.. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. therefore.g.g. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. 1996). as well. Particularly. the longer the time period for data collection. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) also stressed the need to undertake studies investigating the correlation of BIT factors to “the usually measured physiological responses of drivers (e.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. In future studies. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. In the present research. muscle tension. 5. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. The assumption. 211 . for instance. Visser and Denis (2004). combined interview and observational methods. 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.6. Yet. as in a study reported by Chalmé. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. 13).. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. blood pressure. the more information is lost through memory lapses.
and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. Unfortunately. Second.6. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. 2002). 5. individual standard. 1999). and the hypothesis (H2.In the present research. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 .4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 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. 1971). there is a certain imprecision to the measure. Mercer. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. as well. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1997. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. First. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated.
181). and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 1993. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. Kahneman. 2003. because they have taken place recently. 1993). but not always. 1973. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. frequency or distribution in the world (p.. 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. 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.frequency that were used in this research. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. 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. 1974). it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. In much the same way. But. 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. Often. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. Wood & Boyd. but because they are inherently easier to think about. 121). 2004). 213 . experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 2003). 2008). 1982). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. 2002). Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. p. eventful or recent. in other words. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Specifically. Slovic & Tversky.
Of course.In the Malaysian environment. 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. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Similarly. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. 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. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. where driving histories generally include lengthy. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. 1991). Sansone. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. Finally. (2003). asked participants to record the time of day. 2001) . poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. road conditions. for example. during periods of low traffic volume. 2000). Deffenbacher et al. in their studies of roadway aggression.. on one hand. 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.
g. during the study design process. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. In addition. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 2002.studies undertaken. 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. 2005).. 1997). It was felt. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. Good theories are simple. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. have high information content. 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. Summala. 2004). using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. 2005). To summarise. 2004). but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 5.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. 1991). Michon. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. are testable and contain no contradictions. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 1985.7 5. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. Ranney. In the present research.7. Further research is required. selfreported measure used here. 1994).
1997. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 32). Grayson (1997) agreed. stating that. often in graphical form (Grayson. p. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. 294).patterns of relationships. or represent processes. check facts. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. on the other hand. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. if they are modest in ambition. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. 94). Hauer (1987). Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. at times. in particular to structure data. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. The answer to this question is possibly yes. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. The answer is probably not. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 .
it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control.3). The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. In the present research. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. Yet. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 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. hopelessness. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). In 217 . and if they are resultscentred (pp. who argued that. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 2. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. for instance. 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. 95-96). In this case. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 304). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).
While the present research 218 . provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. much current research. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. With several exceptions.other studies. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 2. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. while still very much a model and not a theory. The contextual mediated framework.. 2003). crash-free driving.7. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. sensation seeking (Sümer.3.4). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. Kerlinger (2000) and others. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. depression. for instance.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). agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. According to Ranney (1994). it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. extraversion. anxiety. not on everyday driving. conscientiousness. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. 2005) were included as distal variables. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. psychoticism. 5. as defined by Grayson (1997). openness.
believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Conversely. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. On the other hand. no matter how reliable a safety device. They argued that locus of control. or at least to react more slowly. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. Within their proposed conceptual framework. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. 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. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. 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. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. As a result.did not test any of those theories specifically. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. 219 . Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. Following this reasoning. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed.
changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Summala. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. Christ et al. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. 1996). 2005. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. scarce resources for screening drivers. once identified. Gidron & Davidson. could be screened out. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1997. 1996). 5. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality.In the present research.. al. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. external locus of control and hostile attributions. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 2004). 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. task capability (Fuller. Specifically.3 Driver Selection. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. though. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2002.7. 220 . locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Typically. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. 1982). (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.
These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. education. for the last fifty years. World Health Organisation. Unlike 100 years ago.7. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. and machines are highly intricate (p. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1957). or legal intervention.5. 1961. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.4). 1957. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).4. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.4. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.7. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. From this has emerged the growing 221 . and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 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. 1). 5. teams of humans.7. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. At the same time. Slinn.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.
so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe.6). is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Suda & Ono.6). operator workload and performance (Inagaki. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. (Bishop. Stough. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. In the case of LKA. These have been applied to in-car. 2001). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. depending on environmental factors. 2001). for instance. At the same time. or the adaptive automation concept. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Maggio & Jin. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. 2003). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. 222 . Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. 2005). roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Sadano. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Murazami. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5.
Black. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. changes in traffic speed.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Brown & Noy. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Richardson & Downe. 1993. 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. Fountaine and Knotts. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). 1998). The present research also found that freeway urgency. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Parsons. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. was associated crash outcomes. 2003. in particular to pursue environmental. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 1999. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. traffic 223 . Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 2000). Herzog. 2004. Ulrich. 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.6). 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. 1997). Tassinary.
1992). but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. 309). however. p. 224 . Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. questions of alternative urban structure. journey purpose or other human factors. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. inexperienced drivers. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. however. 1991). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). Dietze. Proctor. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 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. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. 1996. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. 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. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. and whether this information varies according to the situation. 1996. Probably.
to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. lane road conditions. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. Hi H 1. keeping.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. 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. 225 . “rumble strips” in expressways. infrastructure. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. blind spot sensing and lange change assist.1. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. departure warning.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.Table 5. transitions for. etc. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot. and likelihood of. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).
. point. the host vehicle.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.(continued) H 1. H 1. Radar. 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. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.1. to in-vehicle display terminals. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. traffic lights) safe. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. the systems intersection modification. intelligent speed adaptation infrastructure-based Cooperative Intersection (ISA) – automated systems Intersection Collision Collision Avoidance (C-ICA) enabling vehicles to be Avoidance (I-ICA) systems – systems – involving similar “aware” of the preailing involving the installation of sensor arrays as in I-ICA speed limit on rads and (at sensors at “intelligent communicating with inminimum) to provide intersections”. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. including those in adjoining lanes. generally pilot”.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. than the safety standard. 226 . are travelling.1.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. ACC systems provide modifications.
H 1. “Speed tables”. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. environment and other frustrating stimuli.1. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. pinchpoints and gateways or arches.3 vertical displacement. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. signs with calming or vehicles. 227 . measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. Such devices include chicanes.
228 . prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. at least.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. This information allows drivers to avoid or. H 1. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. notification of construction ahead. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. safety messages.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.1. weather-related road conditions.
teachers or the police. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. to some extent. 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.5. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. It suggests that.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. 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. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries.4. 2001). Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. like community centres or places of worship. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. 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. (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. The present research suggests that. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. however. 229 . 73). The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia.7. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres.
such as visibility of enforcement.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. 1978. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. N6). or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. They also stated. First. 265).7. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. 1030). one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. legal measures change least often. The bias of false consensus.5. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. p. however. p. was studied in a 230 . and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. from the findings of the present research. Second. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. that “Of these three approaches.4. or an internal locus of control. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. 2007. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.
Parker. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 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. Azjen & Fishbein. Ajzen. 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).” 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). By doing so. 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.sample of drivers by Manstead. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. on the other. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Stradling. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 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 . 1991. 2001. 1992). 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). is allowed to occur in a Just World. Reason & Baxter. 498). to consensual beliefs of powerful others. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. after all.
232 . it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). 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.drivers’ decisions to adhere. to traffic regulations. Similarly. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.
Results have indicated that. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. as expected. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. when risky. 2005. locus of control.g.. In the present research. it was concluded that driver experience. 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. as proximal to the crash outcomes. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. ethnicity. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. 2003. In doing so. hopelessness. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. A contextual mediated model. 233 .CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). Iverson & Rundmo. Sümer et al. Sümer. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. gender.. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. age. 2002. Wállen Warner & Åberg. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which.
consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. 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. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde.g. 2003). 1986. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 .. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. In the present research. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. However. 1973). 1974). it is argued here. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala.. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. In most cases. 1987). 1982). Hoyt. task capability (Fuller. like Brown and Noy (2004). Montag & Comrey. Further. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 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. as well as statistical grounds. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. This is Of the variables studied. or external locus of control. Harrell.In the current literature. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. the best fit usually implies the best model. and accident risk (e. 1995.
aggression were observed. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Several authors (e. Groeger & Rothengatter.. Huguenin. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome.g. 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. However. cultural anthropology. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. Rothengatter. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. road engineering and ergonomics. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. as well. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. 2005. 1998. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. in combination. they 235 . For example.
Through a multi-disciplinary approach. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. 313). 236 .form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. management. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). educational and enforcement spheres. injuries and death. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. 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. Indeed. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. In the present research. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.
38(5). MY: Pearson. L. Subramaniam. A. Mohd Zulkifli. A. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.  Abdul Rahman. 237 . Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. (2003).  Aiken. (2003). M. Radin Umar. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 5. (1999). P.T. R. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. M. 169-177.  Åberg. 10(2).B. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 1867-1874. R. (1979). and Anurag. Musa. T.  Abdul Kareem. A. 25.  af Wählberg.. and Law. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. L. and Kulanthayan. Puzzles & Irritations. 581-587..  Ahmad Hariza. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). and Pederson. Mohd Nasir. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.R. (2002). H.E.E. K. Third edition. Psychological Testing and Assessment. Neural systems for recognizing emotion.S.A.H. S. Bahrain. (2003). 12. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data.  af Wählberg. Petaling Jaya.. Crash data analysis: collective vs. (1993). P.. individual crash level approach. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. N.H.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.  Adolphs. H. (2005). Drinking and driving: intention. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies.  Abdullah. A. 473-486. Journal of Safety Research. 35. 289-296. (2007). 31-39.
In Kuhl.  Armstrong. J. T. 33(3)..  Arthur. M. M. Tubré. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. (2001). Social. (2001). Age. W. J. 52. and Fishbein. Current Psychology: Developmental. 623-633.  Ajzen. 238 . M. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.C. and Kerrich. Ajzen. and Hewston. Edwards.105-110.A. (1987). (2005). I. I. and Christian. I. (1985). (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology. 187-195. London: John Wiley & Sons.  Amin. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. (1952). 340-342.  Arbous. J.J.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. W. A.  Archer. B. Bell. (2003). J. Learning. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. 23. (2004).. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. A. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. (1997). Annual Review of Psychology. 303-313. 10. J. 7.  Ajzen. C.D.E. Aggressive Behavior.G. Biometrics.  Ajzen. and Beckmann. S. Day. 47. S. T.T. I. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Human Factors. and Kecklund (2001). gender and early morning accidents. A. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. Personality. (1991).H.  Åkerstedt. In Stroebe. 291-307. The theory of planned behaviour. Women’s Studies International Forum. 404-415. 10(6). (Eds. and Haigh. and Tubré.J. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. 50(2). E.  Armitage. 179-211.. Journal of Sleep Research. 27-58. 22(3). Nature and operation of attitudes.
Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Alexander. and Dischinger. 279-284. and Kenny.A. G. (2001). R. and Tortosa. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. October 18). Retrieved April 4. 14-29).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. Wilde. B. Arthur. (1986).M. In Barjonet. (1997). (2002). 239 . (1991). R. 4(2).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.D. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.A. P. and Tortosa. (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Carson.  Austin. In Rothengatter. and Biehl. 51(6).com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. M.  Ballesteros.C. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. P-E. Barrett. D.. 89-105. Manila: Philippines. F. When hope becomes hopelessness. P. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.  Aschenbrenner. (1994).  Asian Development Bank (2005). R. (2002).  Barjonet. 2(4).bakrimusa. S.  Bakri Musa. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. strategic and statistical considerations.31-42.  Baron. (2005.F.-E. 231-234. and Carbonell Vaya E. P. 1173-1182. 34. K. 21-30). 2007 from http://www. NL: Styx. (1998). J. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.  Barjonet.. Amsterdam: Elsevier.M. In Trimpop.S. M. F. T. R.  Aylott. (Eds.V.. GJ. Boston: Kluwer. Groningen.M. Human Performance. W.L. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.-E. (Eds. 34.
Hartos. M. A.  Beck. 1(1). 88. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.J.T. (Eds. L.  Beck.  Beck. Palliative Medicine.G. Lester. (1996). and Mills. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 1146-1149. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. A. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.S. P.C. and Berg. (1999). H. 5-37.T.H. 29(1). Cognitive therapy. D. New York: Meridian.. K.  Bentler. 234(11). New York: Cambridge University Press.T.T. 218-229). New York: Brunner/Mazel.  Beck. A.E. Psychological Bulletin.  Beck. A. (1980). Health Education and Behavior. E. 42  Becker. In (Flinders.C.G. D..) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. 234-240.T.. J. (pp. and Simons-Morton (2002). R. Beck. Kovacs. 588-606. E.  Beck.T.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Hostility and Violence.. (1993). and Steer. and Trexler.  Belli.F. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. 73-84.F. (Ed. Cognitive models of depression. and Loftus. (1976). A. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. (2005). D. In Rubin. (1993). The level of and relation between hope. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. D. (1975). New York: Teachers College Press. 149-178). 157-179).A. 240 . 19. (1987b). A.K. (1974). Journal of the American Medical Association. A. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. and Bonnett. A.. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. R. and Weissman. (1987a).  Beck. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. In Zeig. Weissman. Theory: the necessary evil. A. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. (Ed. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.T. J.M.  Benzein. A. G.
Talley.com.S. and Haney. 2007 from http://www. F. M. K. A. 37.  Blasco. S. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 37-40. 39-55. Stress and Coping. 43.php?id=185148. 241 .A. 44-51. J.  Bernama. 15(1).bernama.  Boff. 132(5). Williams. March 12). (1995). (1994). H. (2006. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. (2006). 45(1).  Boyce. 38(3). 391-399.J.B.A. 34(1). Psychology and road safety. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. 472-481  Binzer. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. B. 53.. Graziano. Journal of Personality Assessment.E. and Bonino. 95-104.my/bernama/v3/printable. J. Retrieved March 30.S. and Geller. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.. (2006). M. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. (1984). Psychological Bulletin. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.  Bridger.. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. and Valentine. Benjamin. 751-777. T. R. New York: Routledge. R. and Shimmin. McKee.  Bettencourt..  Blumenthal. 313-322. (1981).D. Introduction to Ergonomics.  Blacker. R. (2001). Accident analysis and Prevention. T. Applied Psychology: An International Review.. Malaysian National News Agency. Ben-Zur. New York: McGraw Hill. S. A. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. D. Anxiety. Managing the high costs of road deaths. (2002). F.  Bina.C. Applied Ergonomics. E.
The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Levine. 445-455. 105-124. (2005).  Bunnell. R. (1995). N. D. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.D. International Journal of Educational Development.E. G. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.D. M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 318-330. C.G.M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Wilde. T. Schlundt. and Cudeck.J. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. 24(1). (Eds. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. W. Haliburton. (1992). 24. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Brown. T. I.. 9-19). C. Goldzweig. 4(4). P. I. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 267-278.C. E. Political Geography.  Browne. Accident Analysis and Prevention. observational data and driver records. 242 . 20-23.S. 14.E. (2007). In Rothengatter. 21.W. 29-38  Brodsky.. W. and Carbonell Vaya. I. G. 219-241. (2000). (2004).K. 32(1). and Noy. 641-649.  Brown. (1948).. Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Brown. E. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. R. 37(4). Briggs. T. Amsterdam: Pergamon.C. Multivariate Behavioral Research. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.  Brindle. R. Ergonomics. (1997).  Burns.P. and Warren.D. R. I.W. 27(3).C.  Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (2002). (Eds. 345-352.. and Huguenin.S. R. 18(2).  Brown. (1989). (1982). In Rothengatter.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Ghiselli.
A. J. In Fuller. 31.W. G. R. A.G. Mercado.  Byrd. & Santos. 21. 290-299. Oxford: Elsevier Science.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. 63-65. Buss. B. 343-349. and Nasar. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.. O. E. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ergonomics. J. 736-751.K. Cohn. Multiple perspectives. T.. L. Applications and Programming. 47(15). W. (2000).A. (2002).  Byrne. F. D. and Kline. 45-50. M. T. Martin-Loeches. 35(6). Human Brain Mapping. 65-115). (1999). Environment and Behaviour.. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. Gonzalez. Hinojosa. 243 . (1981). E. 22.F.. Parada. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. Applications and Programming.. (Eds.  Carment. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage.  Caird. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. (1974). (2003). M.L.H. and Durkee. E. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1957).L. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. A. 15981613. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.  Carmines. 9. and Warren.  Carretie. (1998).  Cackowski. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. J. Journal of Consulting Psychology. and Tapia.M.J. (2004). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. International Journal of Psychology. J. and Borgatta. (2001).. (2004). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. A..  Byrne. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. (Eds).W. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.  Buss.H. B.D.  Carsten. and Cortes. M. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. M. and McIver. In Bohrnstedt.P. L.
2007 from http:www. Taiwan.P. Y. (1996). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. R..0. Visser. What are we allowed to ask.. D. (2000). Carver. Personality and Individual Difference.  Chang. Matto Grosso do Sul.  Chaplin. 10(2). 2008 from http://www. Dictionary of Psychology. S.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Lim.M. Brazil. P. (2007. November).F. and Nash.W. T. R. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.ghipr. (1985). (2006). 21(4). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences.  Cheah. Howard. S. M. and Yeh. (2004). R. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.  Chalmé.-H. 557-562. Sunway Campus. (Eds. Campo Grande. 109-122. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. J. Retrieved March 31. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. New York: Dell. W. F.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. In Rothengatter. (2007). H. 61-71). Retrieved October 15. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). 467-477.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN.  Cheung. R.H. Kuala Lumpur.G.ictct.pdf 244 .-H. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Malaysia. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. November 12). Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. 41. N6. The Star. Cheung.-L. and Huguenin. J.D..  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. March 20-22. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Monash University. and Denis. Driving: through the eyes of teens.
and Huguenin.. Bartle. 193-200. R. 255-274).M. 13(2). Y. 245 .K. J. T.T. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.  Chliaoutaks.. M. London: Wiley-Blackwell. 431-443. (Eds. Tzamalouka. French. Kasniyah. (2000). M. and Chan. G. 2007 from http://www..P. and Bukasa. E. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. S.. (2002).. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.  Chung. S.  Chipman. and Stiles. Journal of Safety Research. A. 377-390). )2007). Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. (2007). D..  Chmiel. (2004).. MacGregor. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 125-129. and Truman. Demakakos.. Lamsudin. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Ward. (1996).. Retrieved December 7..  Christie. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. June).. Safety at work. 38(6). B. Chioqueta. 1283-1289. E. W. 974-981. A.’ Injury Prevention. P. (1999). Towner. In Chmiel. In Rothengatter.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. C.pdf  Conrad. 22(3). How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. (2005). and Costello.. Cairns. N. Koumaki.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. and Darviri.makeroadssafe. R. Smiley. N. 33. and Ward. R. and Lee-Gosselin. H. C.D. 24(2). Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. C. Helmets. 39.  Christ.  Clarke. Accident Analysis and Prevention.G. Panosch. 196-203. 679-684.L. Bradshaw.. M. P. Time vs.S. Bakou. (1992). T. V. 28(2).C. P. (Ed. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. N. Personality traits and the development of depression. Personality and Individual Differences. Cancer Nursing.. hopelessness and suicide ideation.E.D. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. C. N.
P. In Rothengatter. 20(5). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. 64.  Crittendon.R. and McRae. and Durso. 263. R. (2006.thestar.A. and Patel.M. and van Koppen. 152-171. L.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. and Huguenin. Journal of Personality Assessment.A. (1996).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 95-104. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004).S.W. R. 161-175). Amsterdam: Elsevier. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 10. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. October 18).T. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. K. (2002). 45-62. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 5(1). P.F. W.com. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. p. F. In Fuller. D. N48  de Raedt. D.J. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. 98-117. Legal and Criminological Psychology.M. J. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. Mental workload. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. Wagenaar. R.. 10. (2005). Retrieved April 5.  Davies. (Eds. (1995). G. (1991). (1961).J. February 8).  de Waard. 16(5).asp?id-7003. R. H. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. Accident proneness. 2007 from http://blog. The Star. P. Cooke. and Froggatt. and Santos. (1962). 246 . position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.  Costa.  Cresswell. 21-50.  Cozan. W. N.my/permalink.L.  Davin Arul (2005.  Crombag.D. T. American Psychologist.
The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. R. 729-730. (2003). Journal of Counseling Psychology. and Carbonell Vaya. J.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp...E.A.L. (2003). (1996). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. P. and Salvatore. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. Ergonomics. In Dewar.R.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Huff. T. (2005).D. E. Lynch. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 47. (2004). 209-233). 41. J. C. (2000). 28. R. 50(2).E.. E. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. K.L.  Dewar. 27(4). 383-402.L. S.B. 575-590. Journal of Counseling Psychology. E. Oetting.L. E. 5-17. S. (Eds. (1999).. and Brookhuis..C. (2002a).R. Petrilli.S.  Deffenbacher. and Oetting. Lynch.. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.L. Individual differences. N.  Dien. E. In Dewar. (Eds. (1998). 333-356. On the measurement of driver mental workload. 161-171). Personality and Individual Differences. R. J. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.L.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Ameratunga. R. T. Richards. Filetti. Oetting. 26(1). Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.W. R. J. 373-393. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. and Olson. Oetting. P. Amsterdam: Pergamon.  Deffenbacher.S. Women’s Studies International Forum.R.. R. T.N..  Dewar..  Deffenbacher.  Delhomme. T. D. R. Age differences – drivers old and young.S. and Swaim. Tucson. R. L. (Eds. de Waard. In Rothengatter. E.  Devashayam.L. M.D. (1997).R.  Deffenbacher. Lynch.S. 34.  Dharmaratne. Tucson. Lynch. 111-142). 123132. (2002b). and Meyer. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. E. and Morris. 1-20. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 247 . P. J. and Olson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. R.E. The expression of anger and its consequences. 14(12).T.F. R.
In Khalid. (1987). Dietze.  Downe. A.. December). 14(2). A. Social Science Journal 38. 197208. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.E. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.R. Bahar. and Loke. 1146-1158. Lim. 278-285). Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. ‘Fatalism’. H. 31. T. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. (2007. Clayton.P. (1999).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. N.. and Che Doi. C..E. In Dorn. Asian Institute of Medicine. K. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. Brown. W.A. (2003). 323-331. Mohd Yusuff. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. Ball. Miller. (1997). Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. M. Nigeria. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. and Mayser.D.S. Health Education Research. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. L. T. Kedah. S. 248 .M.  Dodge. M..) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. 33.. M... Ebersbach. J.  Downe. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 525-535.L. E.a. (1999). 85-92). 223-231). and Ballard. and Coie. (2004. R. J. In Rothengatter.. T. and Carbonell Vaya.  Dixey. D.G. S. C. C. R. M. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Jenkins. (Eds.T.G.  Draskóczy.. (2003). Sungai Petani.Y.L. Science & Technology. Powers. 53. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.  Dobson. (Eds. Women drivers’ behaviour.. L. Lippold.. 263282. and Rodgers. J. (Ed. M. November). and McFadden. negative emotional and risky driving. (2001). Malaysia.L.  Dukes. A.  Dula. S. Knowledge transfer.
ictct. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. (2005). Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. N.  Engel. (Ed. 279-294. Chawky... C. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. G. Kim. Retrieved December 25. 4(3).A.  Elander.  Dunbar. 69. 113.R. 159165.L. Journal of Transport Geography. 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. G.. 50(13). New York: Academic..(Ed. (1993). (1962). (1971). (2005).  Edwards. 838-844. Causal ordering of stress. Leadership and Organizational Development. 771-782. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.  Elangovan. A. In Lefcourt.pdf  Engel. 2007 from www.. J. (2002). 201-22. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Lesage.M. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. Dumais.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.  Ellis. (1968). Psychological Bulletin. H. A. and Turecki. Annals of Internal Medicine. 74.. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. 249 . Czech Republic. 17-26). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. Brno. satisfaction and commitment. G. Boyer. C.. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. In Underwood. 293-300. R. Annals of Internal Medicine. and French D. 209-306).B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.  Elvik. (2001). A.. G. Lalovic. West. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. J. R. 22(4). J. A. R.. G. (1996). Ménard-Buteau. March 20-22.L. (1984).D. A.
G. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates.M. and Popovich. 86(6). and Chambers. K. L.. Evans. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. (1991). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. W.M.A. E. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. E. 250 .  Farmer. L. 23(5). 38). 6(1). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. S. (1995). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.. p. and Chambers. and Alpert. (1939). 55). E. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. (1984).  Evans.  Ey.  Farmer.A. E. 81-94. C.000 and RM5. L. American Journal of Public Health. New York: McGraw Hill. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). Traffic Safety and the Driver. London: Medical Research Council.G. 784-786. London: Medical Research Council. 421-435. N22.S.. Hadley. (1926).M. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.  Ferguson. Patterson. and Chambers. (1986). J. The Star. 16. (1976). G. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. Risk Analysis. E. (1929).  Farik Zolkepli (2007.G. (1996).  Farran. L. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No..J. B. Barnard. 84). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 19-36. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. Herth.  Evans. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. December 10). London: Medical Research Council.  Evans. S. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.  Farmer. L. E..6bil losses yearly. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Klesges. M.
66. 51(1). A.18(4).  Finn. 38(5). (1998.. causes.A. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.. 115-134. Amsterdam: Elsevier. In Fuller.W.A. Journal of American College Health. (2000).A. R. 137-145.T. R. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.H. and Rosenman. 461-472. August). Belief. and Ajzen. R. M. S. Malays and Indians compared. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. E. S. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 12(4). 47-55. (2005). Cross Cultural Management. R. R. J. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Human factors and driving. S. R. New York: Knopf.  Forward. and Bragg.  Friedman. 251 .  Frazier. San Francisco. and Seiden. Accident analysis and Prevention.R. H. Recherche Transports Sécurité. and Richardson. (2002). and McCartt. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. P. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. I. S.  Firestone. Ferguson. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. M. (2007).  Fuller. 412-426. 9. Linderholm.  Fishbein. (2004). A. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. (1990). Journal of Safety Research 38. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. I. (2006). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. S. 77-97).W. 63-77. (1986). Tix. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. K. (1974). R. R. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Intention and Behavior.  Fuller. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Teoh. B.E. consequences and considerations.P. 207-213. (1975). and Järmark. 289-298.  Fuller. (2005). Women and traffic accidents.. 37. and Santos. Attitude.. and Barron.  Forward.  Fontaine.
S. Hillsdale. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. and Carbonell Vaya.. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. K. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. A. A. 540-546. (1949). C. European Journal of Public Health. and Hyder. and Brown. T. E. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. S. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Y.B. Stress and Coronary Disease.  Gomez. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Malta. McHugh. In Rothengatter.  Galovski. MY: Sage.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (2006).  Glass. 252 . 93-96). E. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. G.  Gidron.B. N. 109-116. (1997). J. (1999).. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. D. and Blanchard. Nandy. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 16(5). D.  Gidron. Mutu. 33(6).D.A. Petaling Jaya. Amsterdam: Pergamon.E. Y. Behavior Paterns. Journal of Food Products Marketing.T.T.E. E. L.  Garg. Aggressive Driver. (2008).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. N. (1996). 109-128. Ergonomics. 13-21. (1977).W. 58(1). 42(9).. (2006).. (Eds. E. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. and Mahbob..  Graham. Journal of Applied Psychology. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. A.  Grayson.  Ghiselli. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. (1999). 12(4). H. E. and Pender. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison.A. 487-491.C. Fuller..  Ghazali. 1233-1248. Gal. 6. R. E. 167-202). C. (2003). 203-220. R. and Davidson. T. and Gomez. R. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. and Syna Desevilya.S. (2006). (Eds. 19.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation.. (1973). 97.P.A. C. (1989). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Personality Assessment. H.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.L. K. Barrett. L.  Levenson. H. 3. (2002).G. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. (2001).. D. Journal of Social Psychology.  Levenson.  Lerner. Malay dominance and opposition politics. and Stiller. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 41. R.M. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.  Lenior.  Lee.M. 397-401. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. IV. Cancer as a turning point. 659-662. (1974).407-423. 479-490. 93.  Levenson. Jehle. (2002). 303-304. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. W. and Nutter.  Lefcourt. H. 2nd Edition.M. (Ed. A. R. 262 . (1983). and Morgan. (2005). A. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). 177-196.M.  Leech.K.V.. 253-269).M. Moscati.C. D.J. E. 38. H. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 37. New York: E.. G. In Lefcourt. H. Lawton.  Lefcourt. pp. Janssen. 377-383. (1975). Conner.B. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. G. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Applied Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Dutton. New York: Academic. Mahwah. (1976).  LeShan.. H. British journal of Psychology. N. Billittier. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. H.
263 . Hwang. Neighbors. Psychological Reports. 15-63). 2007 from http://www. Differentiating among internality.P. The Star Online. 8-9  Liverant. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.  Loo. (1981).htm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. (1997). 39(3).. 7.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.my/news/story. (1979). J. Retrieved April 5. I. H.. New York: Academic.M. W. R.  Lonczak. (2004). E.com.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. H-D.. powerful others and chance. and Yen. D. (2007. H.A. H-F. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. (Ed.  Lindsey.  Looi. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Scodel. 536-545. Wu.  Lim. L-L.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. (1980).limkitsiang. In Rothe. 11. 125-127.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. A.  Lin. Huang. K. 36. C. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp.M. S. (2007). Levenson. D.  Levy. H. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. 59-67..S. 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. (1999.P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Donovan. February 2). Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.  Lonero. F. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. L. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. 213-222. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. (1960). 10. In Lefcourt. March 26). 2007 from http://thestar. M-R. (Ed. Retrieved May 14.
F. 68(5). (1997). Journal of Personality. K. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. (1995). driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. and Mooran. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Quality & Quantity.  Massie. 233-252). behavior and cognition.M.  Marcoulides.R.L. of affect. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. J. (1986).K. R. R.  Macdonald. (1994. Journal of Rehabilitation.  Marsh.  Matthews. 299313. S. (2000).) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 31.L. W. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability.A. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. P.W.P. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. D. and Jessurun. Balla. 103. and McDonald.F. 55(2). Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. (1994).  Martin. Report No.  Marsh. Malaysia.. M.. Vissers. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. Campbell.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 73-87. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.A. J. age. G.  Maruyama. Victoria NSW. In Dorn.. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.  Maakip.R. 62-67.W. Annual mileage. R. G. A. C. Lourens.28. Watson.L. 185-217. 129. H. and level of education.R. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1998). (2003). 264 . (1988).. May). H. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 18(4). (1989). L. Psychological Bulletin.  Luckner. Australia. and Hershberger. 869-897. I.M.M. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. A. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. J. and Balla. J.L. (Ed. 27(1). D.L. C. and Williams. and Wan. 391-411. 593-597.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1999). M.
D. 23.  McRae. 2007 from http://www. R. S. (1990).  McKenna. (1986). Perspectives Psychiatriques.  Meichenbaum. and Neilly.E.P. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. New York: Guilford.  Mercer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Understanding Human Behavior. Waylen. Personality in Adulthood. [ in press]. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Duncan. Fort Worth TX: Holt. November 6). (1983).  McKenna... The University of Reading.  Md-Sidin. Ergonomics. M. and Costa.V. F. (2005. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. (1989).net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.. Hampshire UK. and Burkes. M. 71-77. G. New York: Plenum. (2007). J. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. F.P.E.  McKenna. Unconscious suicides. (2009). (1998). (1989).htm  McConnell.  Mendel.R. Sambasivan. P. 29.. 769-778. E. 37(6). Journal of Managerial Psychology.. (1974). and Brown. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach.W. 265 . Retrieved April 5. Risk Analysis. Gilbody. J. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.malaysia-today. Ismail. Beresford. G. 34(47). D. I.P. 173-181. Psychological Medicine. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. A. L. 45-52. (1977). I.  McMillan. S. Rinehar and Winston. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 9. D. 649-663. F. Malaysia Today..
(1949). (1997). P.  Monárrez-Espino. A. and Schwing.A. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. J.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. E. L. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. Nhan. M.  Mintz. 147-161.E. Aggressive driving.  Mikkonen. Statistics. Safety Science. Bulmas. In Aggressive driving: three studies.  Michon. 266 . 335-342. and Keskinen. (2003). from http://www. J.  Miles.L. Washington DC. 2006 from http://www. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience.J. (1985). D. 75-85. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 401406.. (Eds. and Niemi. In Helkama.  Mintz. R. K. 61(3). A. L. G. Kayumov.panducermat. (Eds..A. Hasselberg. 6(2). Retrieved December 15. 38(6). A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. Finland. and Blum. what should we do? In Evans. Simulator performance.php. New York: Plenum.pdf  Moller. and Johnson. 341-353. (154). M. (1983.org.  Mizel.org/pdf/agdr3study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 21(4).. and Laflamme. V. (2006). L. (1989). Journal of Applied Psychology. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. E.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. (2006). microsleep episodes. l. J.L. 44(2).aaafoundation. J. 33(3). 195-211.L.C. H.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007)..my/en/street_smart_statistik. Turku. May).M. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. and Shapiro. Michon. Time intervals between accidents. Retrieved May 23. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C. 2007.
 Mousser. W.E. 137-144.  Nandy. Visual Cognition. (1994). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 243-261. 339-343. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. D.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (Eds.. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil.S. 15(2). 167-202). (1956). 51-63. and Summala H.  Most. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors.B. Nandy.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. Fifth Edition. 32-37. and Summala. and Gomez. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 38(1).T. A.  Näätänen. 164-174. L. (2007).  Morris. 320-388). Journal of Affective Disorders. 42.  Näätänen. (Eds. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India.  Niméus. 267 . 8. Boston: Pearson. T.. Transcultural Psychiatry. K.L. (2007). 72. Rajasingham-Senanayake. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. Religioin 37. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. R. and Krasner. and Astur. W. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. In O’Donoghue . Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 6. (1976). A. and Comrey.  Moore. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. (1999).  Novaco. (1987). I. A. MY: Sage. S.L.  Neuman. Accident proneness and road accidents. Journal of Applied Psychology. 125-132. Montag. Amsterdam: North Holland. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. E. P. A. Petaling Jaya. R. R. (2003). and Maniam. A. New York: Allyn & Bacon. H. J..L. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. (1974).
and Santos. Oxford UK: North Holland. Tucson.  Noy. F.  Ogden.  Ohberg. and Olson. (2001). Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. J. 40(10).S. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. 445-460. A. 654-656. B. 92-93. P. R. 1016-1024. February 8). 268 . 171. (1997). J. P. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. J.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. A.  O’Connell. A. I.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. Novaco.W. R. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 43-76). 4(2). 201-215). says operator.A.F (2001). Temes. (2002).. Aggression on roadways. UK: Ashgate. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 253-326).. December 9). (1996). W. In Baenninger.W.R. K. R.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. (1997).  Novaco. In Fuller. Driver perception-response time.38. p. Aldershot. (Ed. M. Human factors in modern traffic systems. 34. (Eds. Garner. and Hermida.. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Zwi (1997). (1998). (2007. In Dewar. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. E. R. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. Pentilla. (1996. 468-472.L (2002). P.  O’Neill. Straits Times.L.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 237-252. Spanish Journal of Psychology. M. Injury Prevention. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application].B. p. and Lonnqvist. 2(5). and Williams. (2000).  Ochando.  Olson. Driver suicides. 4. and Z. British Journal of Psychiatry. N51. R.W.
269 . D.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. T. Retrieved December 20. C.. Lajunen.  Parker.G. T. W. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 38(5). D. 2007 from www. Helsinki. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (2004). 40.  Parkinson. and Grossman-Alexander. and Saleh. Personality and Individual Difference. A.  Parsons. 92.  Parsons. H.R. (2008). 507-526. 3-13. J. (2005). Anger on and off the road.R and Stradling. (Eds.pdf -  Pai. Manstead. J. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving.G. O.ictct. N.E..T. C.D. M. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1988). 18. Lajunen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 38(3).S. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 479-486. British Journal of Psychology. T.S. Tassinary. Driving errors. 229-235. and Lajunen (2005). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. L. and Schneider. 37(1).  Parker. 1036-1048. R. B..  Özkan. Reason. (1995). and Kaistinen. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1974).S. T. M. 533-545.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. R. 113-140. (2001).W. 456-461. 34. Özkan. (1998).. Ulrich. T. 125-134). S. Journal of Environmental Psychology. R. Traffic locus of control. and Synodinos.  Parker. Finland. J. 42. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. Hebl..A. Ergonomics. and Summala.M. 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.  Papacostas. (2002). (pp. D. driving violations and accident involvement. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). and Huguenin.
A.R. A. 91. 8(1). (2003). T. Bioulac. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. P. A. R. 35. (2000). and Singh.A. 12(3). and Renner. 324. D. British Medical Journal. Sleet. J. B. and Åkerstedt. K. (1976). Locus of Control in Personality. (2002). U. World report on road traffic injury prevention. D. G. E.B.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry.  Peters. 63. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1971). 875-878. M.  Pestonjee. D. Taillard. 2007 from http:www. Campo Grande. Mohan. and Hyder.  Philip. 68-79. D. (2005). Peden. London: Taylor & Francis. Automotive Vehicle Safety.  Peltzer. Hyder. Brazil.  Phares.s  Pelz. Simple reaction time.. Journal of Sleep Research. Quera-Salva. E.. Perceptual and Motor Skills.  Per.R. March 20-22. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1153. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 147-154. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Superstition. Retrieved March 31. L. M.A..and Schuman.. W.  Perry. 9-14 270 . Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.J. and Al Haji. 619-623... G. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. (1986). Switzerland: World Health Organization. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. (2002).M. Jarawan. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. and Peters. 3. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. 201-204.. Morristown NJ: General Learning. and Mathers (Eds. Geneva. S. and Baldwin.) (2004). B. Matto Grosso do Sul. (1999).H.ictct.C. M.. A. D. Scurfield.  Peden.J. (1980).
(1965). E. (2005). and Harris. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.  Preston. 284-288.  Reason. D.J. 3112). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. Human Error. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. S. 33. Cambridge University Press.H.  Rautela. (1994). internal-external locus of control and depression.E. (1991). 334-343. (1993). Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.  Ranney. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. and Campbell.A. (1989). Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Ergonomics.I. J. J. 566-573.  Proctor. Plous. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Radin Umar. (1990). T. and Corlett. (1976). and Pant.-G. Baxter. K. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia.J. Rider training. Breen. P. C. S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making..D.  Reeder. (2007). A. Manstead. 1315-1332. 317-333.. 271 . (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Reason. S. 733-750. 78-80.. and Lussier. S. Disaster Prevention and Management. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. (1996). L. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. J. 299-300. R. Hopelessness. New York: McGraw Hill. 673-678. R. and Langley. Traffic Engineering and Control.S.. 32. C.  Porter.S. 32(3). (1990). 29(1). IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. S. 20(4). 32(2). J. and Anderle. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand.J. F.J. Chalmers.  Prociuk. T. S. Stradling. 369-374  Renner. 16(3)..N. 26. W. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 49(4).
Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.S. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (Ed).  Robbins. Weinstein.  Risser. 2007 from http://www.64. P-A. T. (2002). 485-489. S. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology.B. Anger. E. Journal of Safety Research. (2000). Stress and Health. (2003). S. R.R. E.Y. P. R. (2004). A.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.G. Journal of Safety Research.  Rimmö. W-R. April). 37(1).L. R.pdf  Risser.G. Tippetts.D. Retrieved May 23.html  Robbins. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Retting. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. K. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. and Solomon. 569-582. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. (2005). 34(15). 453-460. Ergonomics.  Rice. Tippetts. In Lim. Theories of science in traffic psychology.efpa. 1-7. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Richardson. 37(3). and Huguenin. Report to the General Assembly.190.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003..  Romano. R. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. S. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. R. 2007 from http://202. and Downe. Retrieved December 11. cities. P. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1999). (2000). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. and Nickel.. Singapore: Elsevier.A. (2003. 45(8). S. and Voas..  Romano. R. (Eds.P. H. (2007) Statistik2006. and Voas. 272 .
M. T. 56-67. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. C.  Rothengatter. and Bhopal. T. and Bhopal. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory.B. (2005). In Barjonet. (Ed. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J. J. 249-258.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.P. In Underwood. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. American Psychologist. Boston: Kluwer.  Rothengatter. (Ed. T. 80. 84-115. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. Rosenbloom. 273 . G. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. 88. 43(1). Psychological Monographs.B.  Rowley. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (Ed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 489-493. 214-220). 45. (2005). (2002). topics and methods.  Rothengatter.  Rotter.  Rothengatter. J. (1990). T.  Rotter. M. 43(3). (1975). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. Capital & Class.  Rowley.B. (1966). 10. J. 5.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (2002).(Ed. and Shahar. 308-331. In Rothe. P-E. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. C. (2006). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. G. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (1998).B. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. whole issue. 428-435  Rothe. (2007).P. (2001) Objectives. (pp.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.  Rotter. 595-600). J. 3-12). Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.
R. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Retrieved December 11.  Saad. M.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). September 26). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. B. IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. p. spills & death plague Malaysian roads.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). and Heiskanen.htm 274 .). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. IBU Pejabat Polis. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Kuala Lumpur. J.A2. Thrills. Correlations between traffic. 33-36. Malaysiatoday (Reuters).A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2006. Bukit Aman.  Sadiq. 2007 from http://www. (2005. Kuala Lumpur. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. occupational. 29(1). J.  Salminen. Bukit Aman. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002).malaysia-today. Kuala Lumpur.my.rmp. (2002). Road Safety – Back to the Future. 2003 from http://www. Bukit Aman. 23-42). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. F. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. Bukit Aman. IBU Pejabat Polis.  Salminen.gov. September 29). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. The Star. (1999). and Santos (Eds. sports and home accidents.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Sabey. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. (1997). 373-376. IBU Pejabat Polis. 37(2). S. (2005). In Fuller. Retrieved May 22.
484-491. In Healy. A. (1966). J. Asian Survey. Morf. (2006). L. K. 673-687. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Personal correspondence. Jr. J. Sagberg. 6(9). 117-147).F.A. (2000). A. little details. 34. Jr. and Sætermo.. and Panter. C.E. M. (1997).F. A.. Morf.A.  Schneider.  Sambasivan.T.C. In Honjo. 35. and sensation seeking.  Schwebel. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. 801-810. K.. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe.A. and Schade. and Panter. (2008. (1981)..  Sansone. Ericsson. I.C.T. P.E. Accident Analysis and Prevention.C.  Scuffham. A.  Sendut. 3-16).  Schlag. 41. M. 38. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. K. Ball. conscientiousness.. (1995). and the social psychological road in between. V. Regional Development Series. 29(3). The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. The research process: of big pictures. and Bourne.I. H. and Langley (2002). In Sansone. Traffic Engineering + Control.). and Young. Severson. (Eds. and Rizzo. (2004). Nagoya: Japan. C. 6. and Bourne.L.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Healy.K. C. (Ed. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. B. v. (2003).F. L. S. P. 275 . Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. F. D. C.  Scuffham. November 15). 293302  Salih.. 179-188. 314-318. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. Fosser.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Applied Economics.
The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. S. 46(15). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. E. (2000).L. American Journal of Psychiatry. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. R. (1956). (2003). M.  Shinar. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. Hult. 3-7. G. L. 180-205). Strategic Management Journal. and Kanekar. 66.  Shapiro. 25. B.S. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. New York: John Wiley & Sons.  Siegel.E. and Roskova.M and Kacmar. D. (1998). In Barjonet. C. (1962). D. Journal of Counseling and Development. 119(3). and Warshaw. (2004). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Summala.  Sharma.. D..P. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Dewar. Sekaran. 361-365. U. Boston: Kluwer. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.H. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.R. 15(3). 397-404.  Sharkin.E. (2007). (Ed. J. B. H..L. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). K.  Selzer.. suicide and unconscious motivation. P. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Automobile accidents. and Payne. M. Hartwick. 1549-1565. Ketchen. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 325-343. Ergonomics. Journal of Consumer Research.T. A. 276 .  Shook. (1988). (2001). (1988).  Shinar. 1. 137-160. Fourth Edition. (2003).  Siegriest.  Sheppard.M. S. and Zakowska. 51(1).. New York: McGraw Hill. 237-240. P-E. J. C.
. Winter). M. Fishchoff. and Frank.K. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. B.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp.. Cognitive Therapy and Research. (2007). P. 237-258.  Slinn. R. Boca Raton. Sinha. P. and Poirier. expression and control of anger. Ergonomics. Product design with people in mind.  Smiley. B. Crowson. (1977). Measuring the experience.  Stanton.J. 50(8). and Guest. (2007).K. Auto safety and human adaptation. International Journal of Stress Management. Oxford UK. 477-492. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.pdf  Spielberger. D.sirc. Stress.  Spielberger. 1029-1030. J.R. Retrieved December 1. Retrieved December 25. (2001. Matthews.. 1-18).D. H. P.. 49-68). August). Editorial. and Coombs. Issues in Science and Technology. 386-397. (1995).  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. B.A.. FL: Taylor & Francis.. (2004).A. (Ed.. Kurylo. (1998). Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. (1992). J.  Slovic. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. A. N. 277 . Lichtenstein.A. Journal of Risk and Insurance. 2007 from http://www. (Ed. and Watson. London: Arnold. N. M. E. In Stanton. C. S.G. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. B. American Psychologist. S. 47(8). Sex differences in driving and insurance risk: an analysis of the social and psychology differences between men and women that are relevant to their driving behaviour.J. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications..com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. 21(4).org/publik/driving.D. Reheiser. C.  Stanton. 44. (1997). B. In Kassinove.C. Jr. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. 14(4). Houston. Corrigan. 2007 from http://findarticles. 1151-1158.C.). C. N. and Sydeman.
T. 43(9).  Stough. Cheltenham. H.A.E. Journal of Applied Psychology. and stress.W. and Ryan. 247-254. 949-964. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.  Stewart. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. (2005). The Methodology of Theory Building. and Liwag. 63.A. 35. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Stanton.R. N. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. In Lewis.. (2003).  Sümer. UK: Edward Elgar. D. (2000). Traffic congestion. N. M. 279-300). Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. (Eds. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. (1988).  Stein. Maggio. M.M. (1978).. D.  Stevenson. and Campbell. 467-480. (2001). P.  Steiner. Morrison. N. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. (1996).C. New York: Guilford. and Havland. 44(3). Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Ergonomics. (2001)..E. 37(4).) Intelligent Transportation Systems. 681-688. 278 . M. and Jin. (2005). M. 178-182. R. D. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. Trabasso. T. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. R.. J.. J. 1359-1370. M.. Stokols. 529-544. N. R. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. R. N. 139(6).  Stokols. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.  Subramaniam. Novaco. (Ed. In Stough. R. Traffic Injury Prevention. Bilgic... Sümer. A. E. (1993).  Sümer.L. Palamara. J. and Pinto.  Storey. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Journal of Psychology.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. Type A Behavior. 2(4). G. and Erol.R.
21. (1996). P. 193-199. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Ergonomics. (Report 11). 383-394). Safety Science. H. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. R.  Summala. Journal of Traumatic Stress. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Punto.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. T.  Summala.. G. H. (Eds. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills.K. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Nieminen. Accident risk and driver behaviour. Human Factors.  Sümer. H. H.  Summala. N.. and Carbonell Vaya E. In Rothengatter. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. (1996). 38(3). In In Rothengatter. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts.. and de Bruin. H. T. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. 31. R. Mahasakpan. (1988). Koonchote. (Eds. P. (Ed. N. W. G. 703-711. T.  Summala.  Swaddiwudhipong.  Summala.. 491-506. (2006). Özkan.  Summala. (2005). (1997). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 103-117. H. H. vehicles. 22(1-3). A. 82-92). Karanci. H. 18(4). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. 41-52). (1994). (1986). and Merisalo. (2005).  Summala. Helsinki. and Lajunen. (1980). S. 331-342.. Sümer. (1988). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.N. Berument. 38. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. In Underwood. T. H. Personal resources. and Tantriratna. Nguntra. 442-451. and Näätänen. T.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp.. and Gunes. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. S.
353-369. E. In Barjonet. (1989).  Taylor.  Theodorson.S. 609-615. G.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Kuhn. S.  Tanaka. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.J. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. S..) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. (1985).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.  Tanaka. 34. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. 37-44. New York: Simon & Schuster.M. In Grimm. Y.A. C. 280 .C. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. (1996).  Tavris. S.233-239. 581-590. The effects of road design on driving. T. 241-257. (2001). Sakamoto. 18(4).. 241-263).G. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.  Synodinos. (1969)..  Tanaka. Sakamoto.  Thompson. Journal of Social Psychology. (2001). and Fragopanagos (2005). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.  Theeuwes. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.S. 167-172. (1985). The interaction of attention and emotion. and Kitamura. 33(2). (Ed. Y. Boston: Kluwer. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. J. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. S. P-E.. 25(1). A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.. (1998). J. C. G. Ono. and Yarnold. Neural Networks.R. E.  Tavris. T. Ono.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 42.M. E. 138(5). and Theodorson. 52(6). A. Fujihara. (2000). International Review of Applied Psychology. G. B. J.. Fujihara. L. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (eds.E. and Kitamura. P. and Layde.R. D. and Papacostas. P. N. and Huba.
 Trimpop.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Anger while driving.  Tversky. G. 123-130. C. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. 279-297.  Trick.  Underwood. A. London: Academic. D. (1985). (1974). Cognitive Psychology. P. 321-333. and Kirkcaldy. J. and McClure. 2. Personality and Individual Differences. accident involvement. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 147-152. 11-22. 32(3). Mills. 185. and Kahneman. 23(1). Enns. (2004). Judgment under uncertainty. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Personality subtypes of young drivers. In Neumann. 7. (1997). Chapman.M. Science. and Vavrik. (1973). 1124-1130. Thurman. R. Wright and Crundall... G. 4(4). G. A. Personality predictors of driving accidents.  Turner. 55-68. R. 5(5). and Sanders.  Tiliman. (2001). 207-332.  Ulleberg. (1999). (1949).. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.F. C.A and Hobbs. 5. and response to a traffic safety campaign. and Milton. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving.E. L. Volume 3: Attention. and Everatt. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. (2003).  Underwood. American Journal of Psychiatry. 106(5). J. D. (Eds. (1993). B. J. 281 .T. 10(3). Applied Cognitive Psychology. G. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Tversky. O. and Kahneman. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. J.  Underwood. P.W. A. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. 445-448. The accident prone automobile driver. H. 385-424. (1996). D. W.
The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. 913-921. and Rothengatter. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. Italy.  Vaa. E.pdf  Vallières. (Eds. In Rothengatter.D.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. T. Bergerson. R. A. Cockfield..F. Utzelmann. Personality and Individual Differences. Ergonomics. Harris.. M.  Vavrik. H.ictct. 444-458.M. 43(2).org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa.. W. 2007 from http:www.  Vasconcellos. (2005). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 42. and Huguenin. Smart.  Verwey. (1999).. G. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. S. 181-190).. Retrieved September 1.A. (2000). and Vallerand. 26. W. In Underwood. É.D. 282 . A.B. (1999). Matto Grosso do Sul.” Recovery. 2007 from www. (2004). March 20-22. (2005).. 210-222..) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. T. 39. D. Driver selection and improvement in Germany.A. S. 24-29. and McIntyre. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. On-line driver workload estimation.F. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Caserta. Meijman. Sanson. Amsterdam: Elsevier.J.ictct. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. J. 9(2). Ergonomics. Harrison. “Accident prone. J. J. (1998). Retrieved December 5. D. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. 336-345. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). A. Brazil.  Velting. (Ed. (2007). Campo Grande. T. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. (2001).
283 . Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers.  Watson.F. M. Retrieved November 2. Journal of Counseling Psychology.B. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Wellington..  Walker. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. In Rothengatter. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.A. (2002). Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 9.com/articles/waterman37. and Zaidel. January 21). (2009. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.  Waller.pdf  Wei. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. T. N. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.T. New Zealand.P. F. (1997). J. Raghunathan. 117128. and Carbonell Vaya E. D.S. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. B. 2008 from http://www.H. 438-447.E. (1998). G. P. Heppner. A.P.R. P.html. and McKenna. 2007 from http://www.  Waylen. (2001).J. (2000). L. 33.  Waller. Shope. A. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics.  Waterman..A. and Young. (Eds. 421-444. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. 50(4).  Wállen Warner. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. 427-433. and Little.. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.theaa.backwoodshome. M.. Stanton. 1-8). Retrieved December 15. M. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). (2001).F. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. H. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 28.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. Backwoods Home Magazine. (2006). Personality and Individual Differences. Transportation and society. and Åberg. 123-142. 5(4). Elliot. Verwey. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.M. T. W.
. G. 31. (1984).J. University of Waterloo Press.. Ceminsky.J. 1116-1121. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Wilde. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.  Wells. 1149-1152. M.. B. 15(11/12).  Wilde. and French. Mild social deviance.). American Journal of Psychiatry.J. G.. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. and Klerman. G. Advances in Paediatrics. (1973). (ed. Childhood accidents. 135-154). (2002). (pp. Weissman. 130(4). 441-468.J.L.  Wells-Parker.S. G. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. Elander.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp.. (Ed. M. (2002).M (1956). Snow. Risk Analysis.M. 271278. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. D. (1982).  Wilde. (1994). (2005). Preventions of accidents in childhood. 84.  Wheatley. J. M. Wiliams. (2007). Fox. 207-219. P. R. J.W. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries..  Wheatley. R. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. In Halsey.  Wilde. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. S.S.S. G. 324. (1993). Dunaway. Accident Prevention. E.N.  Wilde. 195.J. British Journal of Psychology.  Wilde. Hallberg. and Anderson.  West. K. Target Risk. G. 450-455. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. G..J. Toronto: PDE Publications. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health.S.S. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Ergonomics.S. In Yager. (1988). 34. G. S. G. 2. 8. 209-225. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . Guiling. (1961).
T. 26(6). M. (2004). March 20-22. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. V. J. J. T. J. Driver experience with antilock brake systems.G. Boston: Pearson. E. A. A.Y. 34(5).  Wood. Countries and Their Cultures. In Hanson. L. 8. 557-567. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. (1999). Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues.  Williams. and Shabanova. Flyte and Garner. International Social Science Journal. Gavin. 110-131. Wood. 31. N. Lenard. 303346. Psychological Assessment.R. A. (Ed.E. (2001). 1.I. 6(2)..Workshop. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.  Woodcock.. 2007 from http:www. 807-811. 398-403. D. by age and gender. Cascardi. (1994). S.. 527-531. and Well.F. Space and Culture.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Mastering the World of Psychology. (2008). and Boyd.F. Matto Grosso do Sul. (2003).  Williams. Applied Ergonomics..K. (1996). 99-109.J. J. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Welsh. 285 . Retrieved March 31. Responsibility of drivers.  Williams. N. M.B. New York: Taylor & Francis. and Poythress. (2003). for motor-vehicle crash deaths.. (2003). M.A.C. Campo Grande. 55(175). A. S. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Accident Analysis and Prevention.ictct.  Williams. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. Journal of Safety Research.  Wilson. (2000).  Williamson. T. and Hartman. Brazil.S. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.G.  Williamson. Boyd.
R. 43(9). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention.C. 50(1). . D.  Yergil. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. L. and Harris. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. (2005). Head tilt during driving. Country reports. D.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Ergonomics. G. and Stanton. X. Ergonomics. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.  Zhang. Asian Journal of Social Science. Ergonomics. In Underwood. 46-58. S. Islam. (2005).  Yaapar. Technical Report Series No.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. N. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. M. theatre and tourism. (1999).A. 1314-1330. and Chaffin. 42(5).  Zikovitz. 33(3). 487-503). Report of an Advisory Group. 740-746. Geneva. 473-485.S. (Ed. (2000). 118. 286 . Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). (2007).
differential accident involvement). (see also. the brake line pressure is relates. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. on most surface types. ABS ensures that. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Immediately after releasing the pressure. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . or benefits. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. As a result. allowing the wheel to turn. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. presumably because of personality factors.
black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. rather than a theory. time of week and. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. (see also. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. 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. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. where possible. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. characteristics of road users. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. proximal variable. p. (see also. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. 288 . 25). it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. The central idea is that. 2004. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. In the present research. risk homeostasis theory. including driver behaviour. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires.Noy. distal variable. task capability theory) . it refers to a combination of circumstances. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. Also referred to as risk compensation. road and traffic conditions. McKenna of the University of Reading. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. (see also. (see also. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness.
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco.. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. not as a unidimensional. William Haddon Jr. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. In traffic psychology. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC). selfefficacy and self-esteem. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. this is an orientation in psychology concerned with the study of traits or quantitative differences in traits by which any individual may be distinguished from other individuals. Department of Transportation. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. self-concept. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. intelligence. (see also. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. aptitudes. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. (see also. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). motivation.S. 289 . ability. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. interests. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. values. in-crash. 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. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes.
When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. 1985. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. For the purposes of the present research. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. 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. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. For the purposes of the present research. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. motorcycles. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. bicycling. Wilde. Private speech: see self-talk. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. conversely.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. Included in this term are walking. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. motorised bicycles. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. trucks (lorries). Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. and buses. most usually on roads. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. 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”. the ego and the superego. motor vehicles included automobiles. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. the individual differences approach. 333-334). including life goals” (Chaplin. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. p. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. That is.S.
based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. behavioural adaptation. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. target risk. tunnels.and snow-covered roads during the winter months.” (Ogden. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. p. but only 291 . draining system. including the network. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. Road safety engineering: “a process. Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. (see also. archways and footpaths. bridges. stopping places. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. overpasses. at both conscious and unconscious levels. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. signage. 35). self talk related to drivers’ cognitive statements about other drivers was studied in terms of its direct effect on driving behaviour and as a mediator of trait aggression on driving behaviour. Within the context of this research. 1996. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. parking spaces. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.
hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. 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. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. which are the best predictors of behaviour. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. According to Wilde (1994). Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). behaviour control) (see also. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. On dry roads. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. theory of reasoned action. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. According to RHT proponents. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. (see also. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. remains constant at the target level. (see also. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (see also. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. 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. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance).
time. (see also. ergonomics. from its outset. road engineering. comfort. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. In the present research. motorised and non-motorised. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . behavioural adaptation. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. management science and economics. convenience and economy. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. that share the same road infrastructure. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. community planning. coordinating.Traffic management: planning.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.eng.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.com/cgibin/MsmGo.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.wpspublish.edu/~csp/csp.html 295 . TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Brace & Company). San Antonio. 1993). Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. Buss & Warren. 2000). 19500 Bulverde Road.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Papacostas & Synodinos.S. C.hawaii. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Beck & Steer. 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. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. CA 90025 USA http://portal.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.
ukans. Snyder.R. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. 296 .edu/hope.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Kansas 66045 USA www.psych. Houston. C. Crowson. Snyder.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. 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. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5...g. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. Most of the time when you travel. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 .g. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. 1. please answer the following questions: 2. _________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.what manufacturer & model (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.
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 . How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. most of the time ___ no 11. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. Within the last twelve (12) months.8. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. all the time ___ yes.
What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. 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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. What is your gender? 16. 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 . have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. Within the last twelve months. Within the last twelve months. 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.12. but no injuries? If yes.