CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. 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). The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash
outcomes was also investigated. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. personality traits. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. hopelessness.
. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. respectively). some personality constructs. 302 and 252.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). where. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. freeway urgency. 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. seven fatalities are recorded each day. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. and that driver behaviours. demographic (age. on average. and destination-activity orientation.ABSTRACT
Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. However. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301.
Results indicated that. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. As hypothesised. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Among distal variables. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. BIT. as well.
The role of the proximal variable. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. As reported in previous studies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2
18.104.22.168 1.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 22.214.171.124 1.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3.2 126.96.36.199. Theories and Models 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 188.8.131.52 Differential Accident Involvement 2.4 Risk Theories 2.3
.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3 184.108.40.206.3.1 1.1 Concepts.1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)
4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.6.6
78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85
.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 220.127.116.11 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 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 3.5.2 Hopelessness 126.96.36.199.4.3.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Gender 2.4.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 188.8.131.52.4
2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5
184.108.40.206 Zero Risk Theory 220.127.116.11 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.1 Experience 2.5.4 Hopelessness 3.3.2 Process Models 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 Ethnicity 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1 3.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.1 Statistical Models 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3 Locus of Control 3.1 Locus of Control 2.4.1 Age 2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 18.104.22.168 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 22.214.171.124 Demographic Variables: Age.2.1.
5.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.5
126.96.36.199.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.4 Study 2 3.1 The Sample 3.5.2 Study 1B 188.8.131.52 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 184.108.40.206 Degree of freedom (df) 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.3.9 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
.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 220.127.116.11.2.3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 18.104.22.168.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.6.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 22.214.171.124.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.2.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.3 Study 1C 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.1 Study 1A 3.2.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 126.96.36.199.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.6
188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.3
3.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5.2 Research Instruments 3.7.7
220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.1.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 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
4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2
4.6.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2 Results of Study 2 188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.4 4.1 Age.6.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5
4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.5. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 184.108.40.206 Validity Test Results 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 220.127.116.11 4.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 18.104.22.168 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.6
.22.214.171.124.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.
126.96.36.199 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 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
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Study 2 4.4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.7.5.2 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.7
188.8.131.52.4.5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.1 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.6
184.108.40.206 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.4.5
5.1 Study 1C 4.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 Goodness of Fit 220.127.116.11.3.7.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.3 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 5.5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.8.9. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 18.104.22.168 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.7.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3.
212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF)
.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 22.214.171.124. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.7.3 Education 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Driver Selection.1 Theory vs.7.5.7
5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.7.
2.5 4.2 4.4 3.8
111 121 121 122
4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114
2.3 3. 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. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.LIST OF TABLES
No.10 4.1 3.2
Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.9 4.5 4.1 2.1 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.7 4.11
.6 4.2 3.3
115 117 118 119
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Crash Occurrence Frequency.29
138 139 144 145
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.25
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.24
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.16
Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.12 4.28 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
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.17
5.37 4.34 4.4.5
Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
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
4.32 4.2 5.36 4.1
199 206 207
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
.33 4.31 4.30 4.
4.1 3. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.8
Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.2 2.10
64 80 81 82 83 146
. 1996.LIST OF FIGURES
No. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.4 4.1 4.6 2.4 2.1 2.5
Figure Task Cube (from Summala.3 3. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. Hatakka.3 2.3 4.2 3. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.7 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models
Page 36 37 40 42
44 46 47
2. 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship
2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.
12 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.11
Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
153 154 155 158 165 166
168 170 172
They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. programme. He was very popular with other students. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I’m pretty happy with it. they cut across a lane too quickly. Her hands and voice quivered. I didn’t recognise her at first. I was confused by the results I was getting. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. He was driving. to the weary traveler. He didn’t want to go. But. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. they were frustrated and angry with each other. but she’d nagged him. She had been badly injured. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. LISREL couldn’t. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves.PREFACE Accidents occur. at least not with real tears.D. She had needed to go on an errand. things were not going well. they are prone to other types of error as well. finally.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I like to watch boxing. How important these factors are. I’m a fairly big guy. My research design needed a serious re-working. And they crashed. and this thesis is the result. lane deviation and all the rest. only a trimester or two earlier. They were hurrying. externally-focused frustration. I don’t cry much any more. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. . or wouldn’t. I wanted to throw in the towel. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. I got back to work on them. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. she was riding pillion. just every so often. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I knew the fellow. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I told her not to worry. But sometimes. She started crying and couldn’t stop. he’d taken the same course as she. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. The behaviour of the traveller. I feel like it a bit right now.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. and his mental state. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. I hope it makes a contribution. they were focused on the errand.
2001). 2002) and road safety engineering (e.
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. such as Malaysia. for instance. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. Trick. 2007.g. Verwey. 2002. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2004) have been studied extensively. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 11). Iwasaki. cognitive (Vaa. Enns. Consistently over the years. 1996.1
Background of the Study With an estimated 1. 2007. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Furuichi & Kadoma. Even after decades of study. road. 2000).
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur.. Theeuwes.g. including the
. 2006. state of mind and physical well-being. judgement. perceptual (Hong. Green. Scurfield. 2000). Stanton & Pinto. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Sleet. Graham.. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. policy-makers.CHAPTER 1
1. 2004). This is particularly salient in developing countries. 2000. 2004). 2002). Ogden. Sabey (1999). where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. commented that. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2001. Peters & Peters. 1999).2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
(Peden. anticipation. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Mills & Vavrik. Olson. Mohan & Hyder.
1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. 2002. There was a total of 341. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. However.
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. locus of control. According to Dewar (2002b). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 1989). 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. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2007).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.332 drivers and
15. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. “the literature on personality has a long history. including the study of a large number of variables.112). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 21). p. The chapter
1.roadway. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2003). 2005). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. A total of 10.2
Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 1983). McKenna. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.
.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6.790. 2004.351.
2002) and many others. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 1997. Wu & Yen. Loo. 1991. 2000. Cohn. Lin. Elander. 2002. Parada & Cortes. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2002. Vasconcellos. 1979. 2003. 1999. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Draskóczy. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel.
Historically. Shinar. locus of control (Arthur.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Hence. Ball & Rizzon. aggression
(Parkinson. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Gidron. 2005. 2005. 1993. Sumala & Zakowska. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Ulleberg. 2006. Stewart. Lajunen & Summala. Dewar. 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. 2003). 1997). 2002. Özkan. West & French. 2004. 1997). 2001. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 2000). 1997). Gonzalez. often with widely varying results (Dewar. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Renner & Anderle.
. Rimmö. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 1994. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 1997). Barrett & Alexander. Hwang. 2004. 2002b. 3). Blasco. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Verwey. Barjonet & Tortosa. Wells. Severson. 2005). easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2004). Schwebel. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Huang. 2007). 2006. 2001. Wells-Parker et al. Gal & Syna Desevilya. 2001).
however. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala.3
The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated.e. 1997). Hampson & Morris. 2005). Speeding. Parker. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. Sümer (2003). 1996.Increasingly. Noy (1997).
A frequent criticism.
1. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 2004). with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. with the risk of roadway casualty?
.. 1997. in turn. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. 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. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human.. in particular. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic.
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. vehicle. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation.e. for instance. externally-focused frustration. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.
it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. By focusing on not only demographic. 2005. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age.
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. p. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. injuries and deaths. 9). While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. (b) driving experience. this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. situated as proximal variables. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. (d) driver hopelessness. (e) driver aggression. (c) driver locus of control.
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. gender and ethnicity. but also on their interactions. 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.4
The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes.
.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event.
Näätänen & Summala. There is a growing sentiment that. the plethora of theories available.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2004). Some authors have suggested that. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. Rothengatter.
Moreover. 2004. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Utzelmann.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. 1974). 94). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Katila & Peräaho. 1993). 2000). 2005. 1997).Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. in the applied
sciences. Laapotti. p. 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. 2004.
. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 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. 1997. The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 2001. Hatakka. road safety measures and public policy. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. “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.
although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. incorporating cognitive ergonomics.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. Che Ali.. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. 2001).g. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. To the author’s knowledge. Radin Umar. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. human motivation. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and.5
Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research
methods are answered fully in chapter 3.
. This broader perspective. 2001).
In doing so. which deals with methodology. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed. It is useful. attitude theory. in turn. 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.. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway.
second. Study 2 and Study 3.
Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. In Study 1. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. freeway urgency. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1.
The present research applied an ex post facto research design. at the conclusion of Study 1C. In each successive study. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. first. each entailing data collection from a different sample. The final result. aggression. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
. Anderson & Tatham. In this case. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. driving experience. gender. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. 2003). different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. variables (Sekaran. the effects of
selected demographic (age. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. Babin. or outcome. 2006. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. cultural background). externally-focused frustration. driving (experience. 711). These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. p. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A.however. 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. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. 1B and 1C). Black. hopelessness.
in fact. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. In Study 2.are most important in predicting. over the course of 30. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here.6
Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design.
In Study 3. a third model was constructed. Again.
After the initial model-building had been completed. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. 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.
Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. verbally administered psychometric instruments.
1. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.to 45-minute trips. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. 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. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. while recognising the distinction. Stradling. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. 1990). 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. However. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. Manstead. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. The present research. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. The relationship between the manner
. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 2002.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. as well.
Finally. 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. Are the attitudes. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Katila & Laapotti. Boyce & Geller. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. Keskinen. at least to a certain extent. Baxter & Campbell. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. 1997).
.in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
“laid-back” and “considerate”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. 2003). A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.1
Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. Over 6. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. “reckless”. 2005). These are thought to have contributed. inconsiderate and aggressive. they indicated “angry”. In newspaper reports. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. industrialisation and motorisation. 2007). 2005). 2007). “friendly”. 2007). Recently. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”.1 2. 2007).CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. 2006). as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. “patient”. The public image of driving in Malaysia – and the generally negative reputation of the driving community – suggests that roadway safety has emerged as a significant national problem. there were 341.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 1989). “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2005). in aggregate. “peaceful”. “impatient”. and as a “major public health problem”
(Subramaniam. economic expansion. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. to a rapid increase
. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. in order of frequency. “bullies” and “selfish”. A developing country in Southeast Asia.000
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.1. Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population.
000 vehicles in 2006.
In Malaysia.287 9.091 37.425 2003 6.228 9.000 vehicles (Law.425 5. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. Abdul Rahman.415 52.7111 2003 298.98 deaths per 10. 2002-2006
Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 Total 279. one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.264 2006 341.200 9.286 9. Generally. Radin Umar.2).815 2005 328. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.
Table 2.653 2004 326.252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. 2005). 2007).236 49. & Wong. 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. 2005). This suggests that studies.012 19.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.395 2006 6. Studies
. Subramaniam & Law.885 35. 2003.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. from 189.
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. in Malaysia.20 deaths per 10.287 in 2006.304 in 1994 to 6.552 37.040 2004 6.417 47. 2005).741 38. Table 2.218 2005 6.891 8.645 54. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.253
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. Mohd Zulkiflee.
15 43 0.41 302 1.90 159 0.947 10. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.37 337 1.91 984 4.77 3. general insurers paid RM1.178 15. It has been reported that.921 100 20.85 147 0. or an average of RM4. 2001).309 10.50 979 4.47 280 1.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. 2001.67 206 0.80 203 0.469 15.63 160 0.216 10.11 2.68 3.15 572 2.709 8.85 2.94 2.64 135 0.08 2.40 1.025 9.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. in 1999 alone.05 2.65 121 0.15 3.329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.023 5.803 9.07 2. 2006). or about 2.820 13.27 458 2.84 1.389 6.68 128 0.4 billion to RM5. 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.038 13.034 4. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.341 12. 2005).31 3.48 323 1.72 554 2.99 164 0.26 463 2.54 708 3. Morrison & Ryan.94 1.81 3. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. and particularly among younger drivers.76 22.08 541 2. Table 2.593 11.16 90 0.431 7.418 100 19.7 billion.06 608 3.22 150 0.67 billion.29 2.315 17.05 2.21 3.005 15.65 2.08 1.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.448 17.997 14.29 708 3.378 11.086 9.049 15.81 1.05 1.10 3.07 2.08 585 2.953 17.81 2.551 12.48 105 0.416 6. 2002.94 625 3.205 11.
.180 10.967 100 19.49 450 2.82 1. 2003).110 10.56 3.23 2.92 2.45 30 0. Palamara.92 1.620 7.97 1.61 99 0.71 543 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.
But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. which is actually a nightmare. Criticisms of road configuration. Some seven years later. traffic congestion. 2006). if people want to die? (Lim. The economic consequences can be estimated. In 1999. 1999). In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
.Yet. What else can we do. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. 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. 2005). lane definition. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. the 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. There is no way to A popular
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. (Bernama. or the pain of the maimed.
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.
unlike in other countries. Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. In 2006. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi.
how they think. 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. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Who they are.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. newspaper columnists. as compared with 1.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. though. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better
. Krishnan & Radin Umar. 1997). 2001. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 2005). The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. 2005). 2007). 2006).
Researchers. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia.
Generally. is often mentioned as a factor. for instance. 2007). serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. In a recent newspaper interview. 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.(Abdul Rahman et al. given greater risks of accident.
perhaps. Law. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Radin Umar. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Bartle & Truman. Chalmers & Langley. In a separate study. however. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Ward. causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. In none of the studies of the MSP.
2. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities.
For instance. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. 1996).general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. (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. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Law et al. Ahmad Hariza. conspicuity and excessive speeding. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use.
. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Musa. respectively.1.2
Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. 2007). Mohd Nasir. rather than personality factors.
In the same study. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. injuries and fatalities. This is.
motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities.
. since 1994. 1996). 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. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 121-122). 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.122). 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. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”.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. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. According to Williamson. 110). has linked peninsular communities. generalising to all driving environments and situations. The very monotony of the road surface. the factor that made the high speeds possible. He argued that. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.
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. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. This. however. resulted in a myriad of problems. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them.
engineering factors. West and French. bad road conditions. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. This has included the examination of age and gender. personality characteristics (Elander. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. 62). Christ. 1991). etc. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems.
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.
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. 784). experiential.2 2. personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. Among human factors.1
The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. Åberg. 1993).2. levels of driving experience and. Human
factors are far more important than engineering factors. by far. particularly. but rather
. 1993. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006).2.
377). Further. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
. weak. 2002. Ranney. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. Lajunen & Summala. Haddon (1963). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 2004). 2004) and other contextual variables. 2005). and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 641). unclear. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 1994). 1997. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 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.
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. 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. or at least predict. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes.
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. noted that “one of the remarkable aspects of motor vehicle accident research has been the willingness of many to base scientific investigations on data of a quality which would immediately cause their rejection as the stuff of research in any other subject area” (p. to a large degree.by the behaviour of drivers. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p.
However. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. prior accident experience (Lin et al.
there has been an interest in driver personality. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1996.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.2. 2003). 2003). 1993). 482).2
The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
2. the lack of replication of many studies.2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 1997a). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Preston & Harris. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 321). motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah.
2. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. information processing. Underwood & Milton.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 2005). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Nevertheless. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.2. 2002.
. 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. 1961.
integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. in the field of traffic.654-655. Indeed. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. eoncompassing engineering. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. anthropology and sociology. 2002). traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.2. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. According to Rothengatter (2001). psychology.Transportation systems shape the
structure of our
communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined
psychological processes including personality disposition.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. 246). that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. Ochando. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.
To wit. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. or peculiar to. but that complex traffic
. 3). in a Spanish survey. medicine. 4).
2. transportation planning. traffic and transportation.” (p.)
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. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or the psychological support for intervention. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.2. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. ergonomics.
Wilson. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. Odero. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 1995. Stanton (2007) noted that. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002)
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Peden & Hyder. in particular. 2007. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. the study of cognitive processes. as well. Johnston. over the past ten years. 2002). In the broadest sense. Garner and Zwi.
Ergonomics has made a contribution.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. the road environment comprises the vehicle. 2003. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes.
In a recent special edition. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Hyder & Peden. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. 2000). 24). the road infrastructure and other road users. 2004. surrounding environments and
. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 1997. 1158).
Walker. though. Neerincx & Schriebers. which
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). Jannssen. 2006. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. “This school of though. 1997. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 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. 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. Noy. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Stanton & Young. predict and modify road user behaviour. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. 26). Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as:
.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 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.
Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. error and cognitive modelling.3 2. 2004). particularly the notions of mental load. 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. 2001). traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building.3.
In traffic psychology. 1995). To a degree. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. this may be due to
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 1985). each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations.
2. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. or accident-causing behaviours. Ericsson & Bourne Jr.2
Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. p. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear.. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. p. Reasons for this are likely several.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. often in mathematical form. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson.3. but for the purposes of this thesis. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. On the other hand. 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. 2000. 1969). 2005. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 8)
Any set of systematically interrelated
hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. A-18)
Often. in traffic psychology. or both. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates.
2005). Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. many models have been proposed.
taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. perceptions. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour.
Notwithstanding these difficulties. These may be classified as: theories of individual
differences. etc. social. and emotional determinants. 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. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic.
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. enjoy driving. Rothengatter.3. feel in control.3
The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. minimise delay and driving time. 2002). I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. … Just because we as
investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. risk adaptation theories. not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. motives and personalities (Robbins. and most of the time is not especially influential. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation.. cognitive.
. given the complexity of human behaviour. avoid obstacles. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. attitudes. For over ninety years. 2004. 189). Instead.the imprecise definition of concepts. 2005).
Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. for instance. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low
conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. aggression. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. 1990). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. McRae &Costa. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. anxiety and driving anger. 1980) and other safety outcomes. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. However.
According to Rothengatter (2002). aged 16 to 29 years. 1995. but not occupational accidents. neuroticism. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 1979). In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. 2000). conscientiousness.
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).
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents.
In 1917. λ. in certain cases. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
.3. West & French. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. “irrespective of environment. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. the average number of accidents. weight and perhaps even intelligence. 1993.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. If each individual has a unique λ-value. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. 1962. during and following the war years. just as one can meaure height. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. but persists today. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.
According to Haight (2004). occupational and otherwise. personality. sensori-motor skill. 1920). the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. found first that the frequency of accidents. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. Research by board statisticians.finding.152).3. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it.
2. p. his or her accident proneness. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. 1984). p. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.
195). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. more probably psychological (p. at home. inadequate or irrelevant. 2004).out what that value is. 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. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. p. but did not take into consideration whether. inappropriate. 1956). in successive years. 294). by devising clever tests. The accident-prone concept. in a Finnish telephone survey. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. 1991. None of the experiments. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 1929. 2004). replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. however. in any sample. 1997). subjects reported significant. produced a positive. in traffic or when playing
. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). perhaps physiological. 422). noting that. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Scores on the λ dimension.
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. 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. “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. made an assumption that. Johnson (1946). a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. as well.
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. Farmer and Chambers (1926. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature.
screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work.
2. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. So. Stolk. The concept itself is ill-defined. 1993). “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1998). in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. therefore. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey.sports. pp. Ultimately. Visser. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed..
nothing can be done to identify individuals who may be accident-prone in order to treat them or to remove them from areas of greatest risk. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.05. 8-9). Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik.3. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. roadway. 1980.3. sports and family settings. Pijl. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 562). It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.
Elander et al. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. in fact. 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. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.4
Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic
psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety.
Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.
2. A driver who enters a
2. That is. large earth-moving
. in a study of driving on icy roads. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. Wilde (19126.96.36.199. The introduction of
divided highways. 2000). researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. substantially.
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.
However. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.accident proneness (Chmiel. experience more accidents than others. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement..1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. albeit not crash occurrence. crash barriers. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. For example.
following their review of the literature.
observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. Michon. Collectively. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. In two separate studies. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. at least until the target risk level was reached. RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. according to the theory. for example. according to the theory. 2002). 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. a driver motoring along a wide. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. flat. 1986. That is. Sagberg. 1988. 14).” (Fuller.
Initially. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 1989. p. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
. 2008. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. McHugh & Pender. 2005). many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 1994. Wilde. Ranney.vehicles and warning flags. Fosser & Sætermo. Conversely. 2001. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. When others (Haight. is if the level of target risk is reduced. in turn. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. 1997).
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies.
1977). 2004). 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. and not on the available technology” (Wilde.
More than any other driving theory.. Rothengatter. 2004). “Costs and benefits are central to the model. pay sufficient attention to risk. Evans
. 2002). In a review of research offered as support of the RHT.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. 53). Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. p. 223). psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. To the contrary. the community. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual.. Fischoff. General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. Lichtenstein. 2008. Also. 1994.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 1989. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Corrigan & Coombs. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. (p. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. p. 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. 2001. however.” (Vaa. 1151). but they are not defined in psychological terms. Slovic. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. 2002).
Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 81).2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 1987.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. 92). 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. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. p. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. In addition. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. after a similar review. 26). In other words. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. or expecting. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. Summala. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. O’Neill and Williams (1998). they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Rather. At this point.4. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. and
. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 2004. for example. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy.
2. 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.3. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.
Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. Glad & Hernetkoskis. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. 2002. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 1999). as a result.
. Van der Hulst.5
Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver
behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels.1). for instance. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. such as time pressure. Meijman & Roghengatter. age and social variables.3.
2. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. On the other hand. Reeder et al. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Summala (1996.learn how to respond safety to.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Hataaka. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. A large number of studies show that external motives. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 1996. 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. Gregersen. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). much of which arises from personality. Keskinen. and specific driver actions. 1998.
but that is not
. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other.MOBILITY NEEDS
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
Decision making Supervisory monitoring
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS
Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. seemingly concurrently. at the same time. a property absent within the task cube concept. 1996)
Keskinen et al. 15). Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
hierarchy. (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. for example. 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.
Passing and other maneuvers
Figure 2. Automated)
Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control
Lane keeping etc. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.1: Task Cube (from Summala. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring.
1).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. Fuller
.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.
Compensatory action by others
Loss of control
C<D Task Demands (D)
Figure 2.g. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. affective states). drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 252). unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.
2. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. Most of the time.3. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 1982. high speeds. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold.. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.6
Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. However.
Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 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. people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform the behaviour.Fuller’s theory has. 1985. p. According to the TRA. objects. however. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 126).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. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. Fishbein & Ajzen.3. emotional state. 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. generally referring to a positive or negative
. and Keskinen et al. Generally. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Since 1985. 1985. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 2004. time pressure).
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.7
2. 40). and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 1991). Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. p. for the most part.6.
2. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Two limitations have been noted. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour.3.
see Figure 2. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). p. 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”).
behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 1985. then.
2. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control.” (Azjen. 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. To deal with this uncertainty. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. According to the TPB.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). however (Sharma & Kanekar. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 2007). “Even very mundane activities. 24).2). Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.3.7.
. Further. 2003). 2002. or sense of self-efficacy. 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. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area. greater perceived control (i. 1989) Within the theory. when intention is held constant.e. 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.. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations
Attitude toward the behaviour
Normative beliefs and motivation to comply
Control beliefs and perceived facilitation
Perceived behavioural control
Figure 2. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours.
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 253). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. p.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. In one study.
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.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.2. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics. there
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.
2. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Similar to later findings by Law et al.2). Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model. Many of these use accident
data collected by national or sub-national government bodies or by the police and advanced statistical techniques to describe variable interrelationships that describe or predict crash outcomes.In another study. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers. Attitude toward speeding.4. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption.1
Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. 2002).1. vehicles. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. based on data extracted from police record forms. Austin and Carson (2002). but after controlling for distance travelled. for instance. subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding. pedestrians and road environments in a range of
. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).4 2.
2.4. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Nguntra. R. 1999). 1997)
. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. E and especially H factors. Richardson & Downe. 1998. some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.4.4).g.. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.2. Seow & Lim. however. Mahasakpan. 1994).
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT
Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E)
Figure 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). 1997.locations and settings (e. More recently. Koonchote & Tantiratna. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V. the road (R) and the environment (E). Swaddiwudhipong. within specific situational contexts.2
on the other hand. gender.g. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. extraversion. Personality factors within the
. relevant factors are
grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. substance abuse) that. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.
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. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. age. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. on one hand.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. Within the generic model. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. it may influence crash risk through some other. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. Therefore.g. 283)..5). there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.
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. speeding. sensation seeking.g. more proximal variable. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. By
contrast.. as well. aggression). Factors within the distal context include not only road.2.2.4.
. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. risk taking. cultural driving habits and beliefs
Relatively stable personality
Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking
e. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. aggression
Figure 2. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. psychological symptoms. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. sensation seeking.g. As such.
Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. depression.g. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. e.
the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.
. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Also termed intervening variables. In Figure 2. M. moderating or mediating effects.2. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. 2004). called the outcome. such that path c′ is zero. 1986).
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. 2006). Tix and Barron. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. If.2.4. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Figure 2. 2003). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable.6(i). driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. for instance. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.
Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable)
M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable)
Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
Figure 2. or independent variable (path a). there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 1986). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.7): the impact of a predictor. 2003). or dependent. or testing the moderating effect. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. variable (see Figure 2. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).
.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. the impact of a moderator (path b).
they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. verbal aggression. In turn.
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. Using structured equation modelling. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. Further. dangerous drinking). and non-professional students who were mostly students. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. However. hostility.4. anxiety. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. more relevant to the model he proposed. anger). errors). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. given wide
. hostility. he found that. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
2.2. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice.Predictor Variable
c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. psychoticism).
2002. al. 2005. Finally.. Elander et. broad-mindedness).
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. Tubré & Tubré. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. 1919. Day. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety). 1998). it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. (1993) and others. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. 1920). 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. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. for high-λ individuals. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
. 2003. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. driving style and other distal and proximal variables were the same at the time of the crash as they were when data were collected (af Wahlberg. 1993).variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Edward. In a
subsequent study. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. applied the five factor. or “Big Five”. lapses. 1990) to a similar analysis. sensation seeking patterns. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. agreeableness (helpfulness. trust). Sümer.
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1995. Here. responsibility. as recommended by Elander et al. sensation seeking). conscientiousness (dependability.739). in most cases. Arthur. personality model (Costa & McRae. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Watson. Greenwood & Yule. McRae &Costa. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Bell. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence.
prior to the present one. Sümer. navy. 225). perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors. including perceived control. material loss. using a similar research design. reported that driver anger. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Sümer. hostility. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. optimism.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Bilgic. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. phobia.
.4. In another study. air force and gendarmerie. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.
In other words. have acted on those recommendations.
2. for instance. yielding support for the contextual mediated model.aberrant driving behaviours. anxiety. Karanci. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). Berument and Gunes (2005). some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. They found that the effect of proximal variables.
Although no other studies of driving behaviour. self esteem. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal.2.
knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits
worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures
lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction
locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Retting. 2003). 1995).Downe (2007).g. 2002. 2007)
2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to
.g.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.1.5. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Campbell & Williams.. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5 2. Odero et al..1
Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables
2. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Type A. aggression)
Safe Work Practices
hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour
safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience
Figure 2. Yet.8). Weinstein & Solomon. 2003. 1997. Williams & Shabanova.
Jehle. follow too closely. 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. p. overtake dangerously. However.. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. In fact. drive while fatigued. Vassallo et al. 2002a. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 1997b. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. for these difficulties. 1986). McDonald (1994) reported
. in many cases. the contrary appears to be true.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Moscati. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. tobacco smoking. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that.
Harré. Matthews & Moran. 2001. 2007). Billittier. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Connery & Stiller. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. The former is less experienced at driving.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. less emotionally mature. at least in part. 221). The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. Bina. Jonah. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others.
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. 2002a. this is a reflection of lifestyle.
1999. as age decreased. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. indirectly. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. on crash and injury occurrence. 2002). In a nation-wide survey of American teens. and that young drivers.
. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. since safe driving among younger
drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. Stevenson et al. Similarly. 2007).that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.39). In the present study. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Ulleberg. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Vissers & Jessurun. it was hypothesised in the present study that.
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed.
Justification of age-related hypotheses.
.g. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. 129). However. 2004.g. 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. 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. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.. Waller. “In all studies and analyses. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident.1. self-reported injury would also increase. Elliott. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. it
. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.
2. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). as age decreased.
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Shope. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. MacGregor. Monárrez-Espino. for instance. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. without exception. Tavris. darkness)” (p.5. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. Chipman.failure to use seat-belts. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. for instance. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. p. for instance. more often at hazardous times (e.4). it was also hypothesised that. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e.
reported more traffic citations and injuries. 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.
Lonczak. 1997. to date. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Dobson. At the same time. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. found that while male drivers. Brown. Woodcock. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. they noted that many studies have not disaggregated samples to separate the effects of gender on studied phenomena and that there is considerable contradictory evidence about whether changes in females’ driving patterns have accompanied social and economic status changes. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
. While there is much of value in such an approach. Welsh. This is important. Lenard. 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. 2001). 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. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Flyte & Garner. Ball. which typically took place during evenings and nights. worldwide. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. 525526). Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that. (b) females drive increasingly more. in a sample taken in the U.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. state of Washington.S. 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. for instance.
evaluated their driving skill lower. Turner & McClure. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p.anger. Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. and loss-of-control incidents. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. In the present study. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. 11).
In a subsequent report. 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. Female drivers. 2006. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding..
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. In other research. as per the traditional pattern. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). showing that male drivers were. Forward. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. on crash and injury occurrence. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. Laapotti. 2003). on the other hand.
. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. (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. control of traffic situations. were less frequently involved in crash situations. indirectly. et al. In a study of Dutch drivers. Lourens et al. 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. McKenna. just as they had in 1978. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. though.
Garrett. lower rates of safety belt use. Levine. Goldweig and Warren. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. differences in fatalities persisted. Schlundt. reported few differences between Australians and Finns.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. nonCatholic countries. for instance. Harper.2.1. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.S. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).5. On the other hand. Corry. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. To a large degree. Lajunen. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Summala and Hartley (1998). this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Haliburton. 2005).
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. But. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. In one of the few studies reported. Marine. Romano. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado.
respect for elders. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. They concluded that there were. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
. humility. cooperation. Family centeredness. in fact.
Differences have not always been consistent. Spirituality. polite behaviour. However. respect for knowledge.. 1999). brotherhood/sisterhood. hard work. piety.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations
Man’s relationship with God. face saving. Strong relationship orientation. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. religion. peace. Roman et al. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Indirect communication. indirectly. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. on crash and injury occurrence. Education. cultural differences can be more subtle. respect for elders. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Karma. Fatalistic.
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. harmony with nature.2). 1999). Conscious of what other people say about us. respect for elders.
Table 2. 2000. prosperity. In the present study. Strong relationship orientation. filial piety. shame-driven. hierarchical. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. family ties.. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. 2005). courtesy. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. family honour.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. prosperity and integrity. While religious affiliation. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future.
in a given road and traffic scenario. etc. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.5.. 2001). Allied to this. 1995. increased experience usually. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. passenger distractions different vehicles. 2002). Hatakka and Katila. Lajunen & Summala.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. journey lengths. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. as drivers become more experienced. 1971). or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.5. A large number of studies have shown that. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p.
Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
cultural groups. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.
2. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. As experience grows. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.2.g. 166). and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. Laapotti.2
2. and as such. directionality of the effect was not predicted. with different weather conditions.
A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended
On the other hand. Keskinen.behaviour in traffic.
although not always.
as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. and sometimes confounded by 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
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. direction and position
Figure 2. It assumes that. 2004). as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. Hataaka and Katila (1992). social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
Adapting to the demands of the present situation
Controlling speed. environment. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events. as individuals acquire experience. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes.by Keskinen. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. Yet.
. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. 1996. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. Internal models contain knowledge of route. in many studies of age and gender
differences. including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.9). 2001). Hatakka. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values.
showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk.g.. 1954). age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Female
novice drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. Ghiselli & Brown. 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. Young novice drivers. Mintz. such as problems in vehicle handling skills.
One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. for instance. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. A simple measure of driving experience. 1948. 2007). and
especially young male drivers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. on the other hand. 1949.Laapotti et al. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. was used in this study. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. 2004). Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Peltzer and Renner (2003).
Justification of driver experience hypotheses.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Brown & Ghiselli.
1991). and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. 282). 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. Duncan & Brown. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. McKenna. Elander et al. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. the miles they drive. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans..
Generally. 2002a). on crash and injury occurrence. Second. it is accepted that the more one travels. driving occurs (Dewar. 1995. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. In individual differences research. indirectly. and type of route where. First. 1993). Wilde.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2001. the concept is much less well developed. for instance. Pelz & Schuman. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1986.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 1984. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1971). 1984).2. Rothengatter.5. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).
Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. 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.
. (1999) have argued that.. indirectly. Mercer (1989) showed that. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.
Odero et al.hours than during the forenoon. Bina et al. Teoh & MCartt. Williams & Shabanova. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. 2006. Christie. (1993). without correcting for annual mileage. 2007. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Cairns. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk.
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. Yet. 2007). Lourens et al. In the present study. Towner and Ward.. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. on crash and injury occurrence.. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. although much research does not (e. in countries like the USA. 2007. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions.g. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Ferguson. however. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Evans (1991) and others. (1986). 2003).
Justification of exposure hypotheses. as defined by Elander et al.
bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. 1975.1. 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. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.5. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.
Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.5.3
2. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Stanley & Burrows. Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 15). 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. or internals.3. Levenson (1975.3. Hyman.5. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.. 2006. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control.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. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.
. or externals . 1990). 1991. 1999).1 Locus of Control 2. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. and second. 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. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Holder & Levi.g. In contrast.10). she separated the externality dimension into two.2.
1.Luckner. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Sinha & Watson. According to Phares (1976).Chance
Low Externality – Powerful Others
Figure 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.
Low Internality High
.3. 1989. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances
Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts.
Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. luck.
believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. French & Chan. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. 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. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. 1999). According to Brown and Noy (2004).
Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.
. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner.
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 39). 1987). however. however. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. On the other hand. but results have been inconsistent. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. which focused heavily on situational scenarios.
Gidron. That is.
Arthur et al. although internality was unrelated to DDB. 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). it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. They found that. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. 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. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. cognitive. In a similar study
investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. (p. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. 1260). In an important study. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant.
On the other hand. In a much earlier study. offences. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors.
reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Germany. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
. Israel.5.3. India. Japan. Italy. and the USA. as hypothesised. Hsieh.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions.1. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Canada and Japan. Noy (1997). is based on the notion that … luck. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. (1991). indicated that. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. In very early research.
2. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. complexity and unpredictability. 122).
Their results. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. France.
More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Noting that Chinese culture. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). which is considered to be full of ambiguity.
This was very true for the locus of control variable. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. Cheung. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay.
. At the same time. skill and ability. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Chinese and Indian populations.
In very early research. 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. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample.
To the author’s knowledge. all internal characteristics. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). only Cheung. Chinese of Malay extraction. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism.
1997. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. McMillan. 1975. Cases usually
. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 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. 1987. Montag & Comrey. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Ohberg. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. et al. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Weissman. First. 1991. 2007.
2. Özkan & Lajunen. 2007). locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2005). without objective basis. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. (2003). Fox & Klerman.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Sinha & Watson. 1973).3. on crash and injury occurrence. Niméus. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Kovacs and Weissman.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. 1995. indirectly. Gilbody.
Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Finally. 1975). Beresford & Neilly.5. In the present study.
finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. 1998. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk.. Breen and Lussier (1976). 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. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. Mendel. for instance. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. on crash and injury occurrence. in fact. can be placed along a continuum between high hope for the future at the positive pole and a sense of hopelessness at the negative pole (Aylott. 1990.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1962). chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. Several authors. In the present study. in a more detailed study. assertiveness and positive emotion. mental disorders and alcohol misuse.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Very early on. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Prociuk. 1976. Selzer & Payne. Firestone & Seiden. indirectly. it was
. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1997. including risky driving. 1962). and crash risk (Ohberg et al. luck. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Henderson.
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. 2002. 2002). Mizell. 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. learned disinhibitory cues. 2003. Deffenbacher.
. 2000. & Darviri. Underwood. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion. physiological arousal. Barton and Malta. 1999. Malta & Blanchard.
2.5. Lynch & Oetting. 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. learned cognitive scripts. Bakou.
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Filetti. Wright & Crundall.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. and deindividuation. In a largely unrelated study.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. including subjective feelings of stress..3. Chapman. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 2000. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Chliaoutaks. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Richards. Koumaki. Tzamalouka. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Demakakos. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 2006).
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. though. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for.
Schwebel et al.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. (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. Snyder. such as TAPB. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. 1976. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. 1962). Crowson. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. This led to an interest in the sorts of self-talk in which individuals engaged under varying conditions and corresponded with the emergence of cognitive therapies (Beck. Talley. the display of aggression (p. Ellis. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Bettencourt. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. However. More recently. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). rather than a cause of. through the use of self-statements. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. as another. 163). Houston. Groeger (2000). stress induced by time pressure. lack of control over events.
They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. McKee. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974).
. Magnavita. Rice.
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Deffenbacher. that the total amount.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 1999. Karlberg. 1998. Kamada. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. competitiveness. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et.
In the present study. It was also hypothesised. Williams & Haney. 2006. Thurman. 2000. al. 2006).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. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Blumenthal. 1985). 1999). Sani. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 1981. Undén. Sato. (2003). Carbone.. Frueh & Snyder. James & Nahl. Narda.6. 2001). on crash and injury occurrence. impatience. 1999. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.6 2. Elofsson & Krakau. and specific content. Lynch. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. Kumashiro & Kume. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. aggression. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Miyake. Later still. insecurity about status. Bettencourt et al. 2002. indirectly. Petrilli.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments.
alcohol consumption. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. 1979) and number of accidents. however. (1998). similarly. but not with accident risk.
Nabi. In none of these studies. Karlberg et al.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Zzanski & Rosenman. Nabi et al. 1989. Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. Chiron. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. 1990).
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. socio-professional category. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). studied police officers in Italy. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). West. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. gender. Raikkonen. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. where Type A drivers were 4. In a correlational study of British drivers. 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. for instance. Consoli.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. focused on the time urgency component
. Chastang. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. category of vehicle. age. They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. driving style. was driving frequency. 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. however.
In a subsequent study. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness. Of the four BIT
factors. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
continuum. 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). specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. then use of the Type A/B
. on the other hand.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks.
2. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). Miles and Johnson (2003). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score.6. Glass.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. Gender. At the same time. ethnicity. namely “externally-focused frustration”. 1977).
ethnicity. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales.
They argued that it would be preferable.
In neither of their studies. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. locus of control. 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. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. In the present study. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. although ethnicity. At the present time. 13). and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. though. that are measured by the BIT scale. aggression and the amount and content of
. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. To the author’s knowledge. hopelessness. driving experience. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. on the other hand. including gender. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. Similarly. Specifically. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. 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. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics.
since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.. externally-focused frustration. West et al. 2003.. 1986. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 2005. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al.
. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. 1993) and.hostile automatic thought. Miles & Johnson. Further. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 1985).
the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. 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. the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
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. In Study 1C. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 1B and 1C. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. aggression (see Figure 3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).3).1
Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. In Study 1B. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.
.1). Then. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers
In Study 1.2). 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. with the addition of a third psychological variable. each study explored the extent to which demographic.
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
3. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.5
Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. affective. but not chance. cognitive. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. overlapping and ambiguous. a separate score for internality (I). Weissman. 1999). and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p.2. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological.4
Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies. 1994).
3. For the purposes of the present research. For each of the five studies undertaken. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. 25). In the present research. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger. Lester and Trexler (1974). a thought process that expects nothing.2.
Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976).
3.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. frustration. and. 1996). Specifically. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. expressed through the presence of irritability. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Vallières. social alienation and paranoia. hitting or interpersonal violence. Deffenbacher. 1957. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.2. through fighting. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. Oetting. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 2003. The present
research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. In the present research. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
. 2005). Lynch & Morris. Bergeron & Vallerand. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. were also investigated. The effects of participants’ total aggression.
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. competitiveness. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. characterised by excessive impatience. 1998). (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.
3.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. frequent lane changing. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al.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. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
. the BIT score. not allowing others to merge or overtake.2. (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. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP).. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.g.. and. hit or kill another individual. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.
2.them (e.3 3.9
Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.1
Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. In the resulting measure of this variable. the influence of driving experience. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.g. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.
. 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. In the resulting measure of this variable.3. 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.2.
3.. and. travel frequency. Then. three demographic variables (driver age. in Study 1A.8
Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.
while driving. to the extent of inattention conditions. Then.
3. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).
(b) the moderating effect of locus
. travel frequency.3
Study 1C In Study 1C. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.
3. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving characteristics.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. three demographic variables (driver age. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3. Then. In this study. hopelessness. Figure 3. travel frequency. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Then. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel
frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. Figure 3.
3.3. In this study. Finally. In Study 1B. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Finally. Then. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control.2
Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency.
using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation.
. Figure 3.3.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. This was justified for three reasons.4
Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.
3. the influence of
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. First. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3.
3.3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Then. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. 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. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. and (b) taxi experience. Figure 3. In Study 3. Finally.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. In Study 3.5
Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.
limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
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
H2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. Third.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2. Second.
3.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score
.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H188.8.131.52: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control
H4.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H184.108.40.206: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
H8.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
.Table 3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H220.127.116.11: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others
Y Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.1.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.
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. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. Participants from the first round of data collection were
included in Study 1A.1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a
car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
Y Y Y
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12.Table 3. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation
3.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5. within a 14-month period. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the
.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. using the same procedures as in Study 1.5 3.3: 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
5. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. while participants were driving. Data collection took place within the taxicab.. I try to urge its driver to move
. by postal mail.2
3.g.2. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.5. In all cases. Novaco. Stokals & Campbell. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour.time when they travelled.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. 1978). Stokols. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. For inclusion in the study. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. in the case of Study 3 participants. during a point to point trip. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. 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. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.
Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Destination-activity orientation
.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Usurpation of right-ofway
No. Externally-focused frustration
IV.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Freeway urgency
III. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “On a clear highway. as indicated in table 3. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor
I. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated .”
II.91) were found to be internally consistent. to school or to an appointment with someone.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.80.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.” “While travelling to work (or to school).
In a later study.2. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. with a coefficient alpha of .
Table 3. of items
“When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. On each form. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.
Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. 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.
. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.
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. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.
3. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections.5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. References to the faster. A sample item is “When I get what I want. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.
” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. if not. I may tell them what I think of them. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.”
. Beck et al. Of the 20 true-false statements.” “If I’m angry enough. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.5. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. or 0. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Tanaka et al. 1974).” “When someone really irritates me. 1993.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.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.5. and five subscales measure physical aggression.
3.” “I get into fights more than most people.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. 1982. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. 2005. if endorsed.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Table 3.3).” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “When people annoy me.2. 1996). A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.2. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. verbal aggression. 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”. anger. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Durham. I may mess up someone’s work. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.
I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.2.” “I want to get back at this person.5. Williams. gender. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. of Items
11 10 9 30
“If I could get away with it. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.71 to . Shapiro.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor
Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total
No.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.4). ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.
3. 1997.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .”
3.92. age. Cascardi & Pythress.88 and . 5 = “all the time”). Three factors – physical aggression.2. 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. 1996).
. . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.5. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. Boyd. with coefficient alpha values of . derogation of others and revenge respectively. 2000).91 for physical aggression. 1997. Snyder et al.
in random order. Levenson and BIT scale. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. BHS. BIT scale and AQ. BHS. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. BIT scale. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Levenson. Levenson.6 3.1
Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods.6. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.
After the briefing period. AQ and HAT. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Study 1C: PIF. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Study 1B: PIF. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. with an e-mail summary of results. between the two forms of the BIT. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. BHS.
In studies 1 and 2. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer.
. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. upon request. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed.3.
Data collection took place in taxicabs. rel.
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research.
analyses of variance (ANOVA). provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.6.7
Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows. as well. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 13. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. At initial contact.
3. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Two to four times daily. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. rel.5. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. 8. aged 22 to 24 years. four female final-year undergraduate students. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. 2002).2
Study 3 For study 3. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. For safety reasons. Levenson Locus of Control scale. The PIF was always administered first.0.3. BIT. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. 2004). Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT.
.5. Over the course of the trip. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 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. AQ and Levenson scales.
1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Age influence the Locus of Control
Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness
H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT
H2.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement
H1.3: 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: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness
H6.Table 3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: “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
H7.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.
2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12. the higher the BIT level H8.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT
H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance). 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 H9.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis:
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT
GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation
H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression
H10.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Age influences the level of Aggression
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT
H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
.Table 3.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation
Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT
H13.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: The higher the Internality.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.
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
H15.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. hopelessness. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.7. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression
3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. locus of control. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. locus of control.Table 3. In the present
3. hopelessness.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT
H14. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.
Independent-sample t-tests Generally.2
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. In the present
Also. For instance.7.7. second. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. In the present research. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.5
Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables.7. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). In the present research. if so. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness.
3. In the present research.
. hopelessness. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).3
The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a
dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.3. to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.
3. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.4
Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and.
on the other hand. 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). using LISREL. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.6
Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the
nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted.3.
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. In the present research.7 Structural Equation Modelling. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes.7. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. SEM was carried out. 3. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. In the present research. 710). logistic regression. Goodness-of-fit indicates how
. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables.7. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. That is.
the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. including: (1) two absolute indexes. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. For Study 1C. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more.
In the present research. (Hair et al.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI).
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. If a
researcher’s theory were perfect. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. (1988). the better the model is said to fit. 745). Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. Thus. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). in fact. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. 1998). 2006.. p. 1998) – presently exists. According to Marsh et al. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic.
fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 1998.
. and a measure of parsimony fit. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. one incremental index.7. the ratio indicates a good fit. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.7. 112). 1998). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). the higher the probability associated with χ2. 2006). Thus.
3.10 indicate poor fit. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.7. an insignificant p-value is expected.
3. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).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. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).7. Hair et al.
3. the normed fit index (NFI). However.00 in which values greater than . Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 2006).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. pp.0. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7.validation index (ECVI).
4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.18.104.22.168 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.00.
3.00. Tanaka & Huba.7. with higher values indicating better fit.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.
.7. an RMR greater than .. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 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 with value more than .00 being indicative of good fit.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. The index ranges between zero and 1. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.
3. The index can range from zero to 1. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00 with value closes 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. Thus. Values range from zero to 1.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Bentler & Bonnet.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.
3. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. the normed fit index (NFI.7. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. 2006).
2006).7. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.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. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. p. Like other parsimony fit indices. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. in this case. 1994).
. 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. 2006. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. 750).7.7. In such cases.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.. Browne & Cudeck.00. considering its fit relative to its complexity. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. Mulaik & Brett. James. Although values range from zero to 1. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.00. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. It should be noted that. Values range between zero and 1. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.
3.3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 1976.7.
3. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. it is said to be positively skewed.3. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 1956). The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 37).05. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. If the opposite holds. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
. 2000). If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. p. in this case. and platykurtic if it is less peaked.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution.7. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. In this case. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 1976).
. Barrett & Morgan. A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech.normality of variable distributions. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. Marcoulides & Hershberger.
The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1: 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 33.13 years (SD = 1.3% 8.1% 34. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
university.1 4.5% 27.9% 977 100% 100%
.1% 121 22.1.4% 146 14. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. 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. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% 6.9% 23.9%
Total 441 100% 45.1
Description of the Samples Age. Then.4% 269 27.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.9% 14.4% 333 62. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1% 536 100% 54.6% 15. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.55).1% 562 57.
4. with a mean age of 20.6% 82 15.5% 57. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.6% 12.1). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.
9 per cent). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.35. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.5 per cent). 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.68.
In Study 1B. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.63.
In Study 3. range from 18 to 29).53.
In Study 2.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. range from 18 to 25).
In Study 1C. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 19.
In Study 1A. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. with a mean age of 20. 149 taxicab drivers participated. range from 18 to 27).
. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. range of 18 to 26).89 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1.25 years (SD = 1. followed by Malay (27.
4% of the sample.2: Age. 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university.25 43. Johor or Perak made up 53.3% of the sample.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.65
Male Female Malay
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 .7 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.9 2. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.68 1.53 1.D.43 19.5
. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. The mean age was 43.
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2 7.63 11.
Table 4. range from 23 to 73).2
Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.3).35 1.65. 2 and 3
Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3 11. Kuala Lumpur. Table 4.1.5 8. 1.19 years (SD = 11. SD = standard deviation
4.19 S.1 6. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.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 % 12.01 20.2.89 20.
Table 4.4 0.2 3.9 7.4 4.1.4).8 5. Perak or Penang made up 50.1.7 11.6 100
4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.0 7.1% of the sample. but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. As the sample was
.8 11.7 3.9% of the sample.5 14.8 9.1 9.6 2.5 1.9 0.6 1.2 2.3
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.4
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.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 % 13.2 17.0 10.7 100
4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
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. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.2 4. 2000). 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.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 1978).intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .
In the present research. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.2.
. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.1
Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and
precision of a measurement procedure.5).
4. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.
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
.811 .740 .824 .783 .904 .772
α .910 .808 .740 .788 .830 .703 .702 .701
.727 .738 .783 .714 .747 .707 .701 .768
.730 .741 .Table 4.784 .720 .890 .808 .715 .727 .737 .906 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers
Study 1C (N=252)
No.715 .887 .810 .798 .734 .754 . of Item α
Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers
Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .786 .735 .718 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable
α .742 .733 .756 .782 .827 .711 .781 .782 .817 .881
α .739 .774 .
804 .2.10 indicate a mediocre fit.08 to . In Study 3.6.801 .80. depending on which is used (Byrne.807 .903 .802
4. 1998).803 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.811 . Byrne. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. 1998). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.804 Study 1C . only Form A was used.805 .2
Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. 1998.6: 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 . RMSEA values less than .958 .916 .
Table 4.05 indicate good fit. it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.876 .80 or above).806 .3
Validity Test Results In the present research.929 .804 . and those greater than .807 Study 1B . with minimal error variance caused by wording.
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. more than .4.2. 1985).953 . values ranging from . 1998).800 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.857 . 205).
. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.808 Study 2 .
91 .00 1.000 .97 .99
. 1992).074 .7.000
. A third statistic.00
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.91 .000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
. and destination-activity orientation. the higher the goodness-of-fit).00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.077 . indicating good fits.054
. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.92 1.7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.98 1.99
.95 1.92 .024
. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration.070 .99
.00 .047 .000 .00 .96 .00.90.98 .00 1.097
.000 .00 .000 .2.100. it is possible to have negative GFI.000 .00 1.097 .
.90.00 1.98 1.97 1.00 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 (the closer to 1.00 1.000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .99 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.92 .048 . freeway urgency. As shown in Table 4. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.93 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 .97 1.98 .3.96 .061 .00 1.00 1.089
.098 .96 .96 1. Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .
2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).98 .93 . verbal aggression (VER). CFI= Comparative Fit Index
. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).99 .93 .8.99 .
. and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.058 .030 .3.93 .92 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.96
. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
.90.92 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.91 .91
.3. RMSEA values were less than .085 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.98 .93
.98 .071 .081 .059 .96 .000 .95 .085 .98
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
. indicating good fits (See Table 4.95
1.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).4. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).97
. anger (ANG). under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.93 .073
.93 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.95 .97 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.91 .081 .2.083 .
.055 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.94 .073
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). RMSEA values were less than .92 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.98
.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI
.10).97 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . and both GFI and CFI were more than .
Table 4. RMSEA values were less than .96 .90.92 .070 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.100. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.98 .081 .088
.047 .070 .96 .096 .2. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .97 .95 .089 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .3. derogation of others and revenge.98 .97
.98 .90.058 .97 .098 .98
.9).98 .095 .97 .98 .(IND).98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges. indicating good fit (see Table 4.090 .97 .96
. indicating good fits (See Table 4. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.99 .96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.94 .97 .098 .92 .97 .100.
Table 4.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B
Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.97 .95 .025 .
Normality.099) 1.280) -.280) .034 (.010 (.280) -.297 (.037(.106) 1.962 (. 2006).120) 1.560(.356 (.091(.140) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.323 (.140) -.140) .105 (.140) .204(.091(.140) -.107 (.408(. Table 4.297(.280) .280) .140) .
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.280) .246(. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.875(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140)
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
.183) 1.140) .085) 1.280) .410(.226 (.219 (.140) -.11: Normality Tests.260) .920(.057) 1.085 (.064) 1. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.052) 1.080(.140) -.280) .278(.091) 1.331(.022 (.805(.280) .241(.453(.140) -.280) .126(.190) 1.140) .099) 1..188(.4.280) -.140) .05).191) 1.085) 1. Table 4.146(.192(.192) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.186) 1.179(.239 (.140) -.179(.280) -.094 (.332 (.280) -.511(.183) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -.280) .140) .099(.064(.280) .085 (.256 (.102) 1.582(.140) .020 (.351 (.140) -.195 (.126(.107) 1.379(.278(.428) . 2005.064(. In all cases.099(.656(.280) -.280) -.403(.719(.140) -. 1997).297(.154(.069) 1.280) .280) .409(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.280) -.203(.280) -.409(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.560(.082 (..140) .
219) .219) -.214) 1.959 (.713(.244(.362(.841(.052) 1.187) 1.210) .147(.948(.210) .022 (.451(.219) .259) .417) .219) -.062(.003 (.417) -.852(.153) .501(.417) -.135) 1.799(.360) .271(.300(.210) -.435) -.128) .277(.153) .070 (.919 (.435) -.153) .435) -.375) 1.360) .417) .279 (.306) -.11 (continued)
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level)
Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error)
Skewness Statistic (Standard Error)
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 1.051) .157) .153) -.159(.106(.417) -.104) 1.715(.443(.198(.153) -.266 (.962 (.223 (.195 (.022 (.306) -.317) 1.099) 1.463(.153) .417) -.098) 1.052) 1.884(.478(.057) 1.370(.186(.435) -.306) .497(.321) 1.469) 1.219) .110 (.297 (.537(.011 (.210) .247) .053(.153) .417) -.210) .567(.435) -.101) 1.978(.100) .153) .306) .153) .952(.130(.156(.247) 1.306) .209(.210) .306) -.822 (.210) -.417) -.359 (.994(.435) -.913 (.435) .807 (.001 (.276 (.327 (.256(.113 (.138(.533) .503(.986 (.972(.210) .Table 4.979(.306) .153) .264) .913(.153) 983(.681(.295(.160 (.265) 1.392(.131(.088 (.106(.128 (.354 (.962(.007(.435) -.719(.153) .024 (.270) 1.210) .153) .417) .467(.138) 1.360) .911 (305) 1.360) -.084) 1.417) -.629(.324(.219) .640(.306) .024 (.030(.120(.510) 1.940(.219) -.426) .417) -.142(.812(.053(.153) .847 (.366) 1.210) -.006(.306) -.210)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation
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
.051) 1.064) 1.306) -.306) -.852(.098) 1.236(.366(.423(.267) .153) .338 (.219) .276(.210) .147(.102) .154) -.805 (.973(306) .414(.417) .048(.540(.293 (.359 (.567(.915(.106 (.
1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12.12. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12: 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.4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. with 44. column a). Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. column c).3 per cent being hospitalised.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. However. injury occurrence was much higher. For motorcycle drivers.12. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.
. column b).
Table 4. if so.13).
involved in two crashes Total 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.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32
More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.
Table 4. 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
.14) Regardless of ethnic background. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.
17 shows means.5. and destination-activity orientation.05).5 4. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. 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. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. externally-focused frustration. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.
. crash occurrence and crash injury.
Study 1B.05).05).15 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
Table 4. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Table 4.16 shows means. in Study 1B.
Study 1C. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All these correlations were significant (p<. However. standard deviations and relationships
between distal. freeway urgency. Also.
Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
aggression (VER).4. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
76 3.191** .08 2.22 3.155** .625** .442
1 -.45 6.69 24.553** -.516** 1 -.027 1 .64 7.036 .231** .247** .416**
1 .152** .209** 1 .01 level (2-tailed)
.88 7.818** 1 .239** .218** .23 2.566**
-.435** .339** .147* .Table 4.3455 .662** 1 .D.147* -.376** .211** .246** .97 43.58 .52 34.533** .749** .202** .942** 1 .15: Means.331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .482** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .00 165.5 5.476 .78 .405** .129*
.381** .201** .804** .04 26.316** .371** .716** .340** .186** .513** .396** .280** .471** .306** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9.562** -.342** -.278** .57 4.434** .544** -.96 19.388** . 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.44 4.376** .391** -.345** 1 -.2691
334** .400** .731** .84 5.43 12.176* .401** .099 .343** .172** .514** .178** .542** .051 .816** .491** .520** .86 6.964** 1 .515** .225** .278** 1 -.523** .039 .213** .353** .343** .48 3.Table 4.555** .408** .298** .335** .448** .84 7.14 4.00 14 19.331** .324** .372** .91 15 27.855** .688**.584** -.518** .56 2 4.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .531** .85 9.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.355** .003 .418** .341** .240** .213** .268** .50 5.434** .9 13 46.162** .463** .294** 1 .386** .9 28.150** .103 -.382** 1 -.60 10 16.147** .172** .331** .369** .06 3 2.921** .414** .376** .22 4.509** .157** .319** .272** .9 12 71.013
.347** 1 -.071 .028 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .275** .16: Means.445** .842** 1 .452** .461** .53 19.3079 .4960 17 .393** .587** 1 -.355** .440**.236** .213** .254** .669** 1 -.55 9 21.159 -.45 5 87.355** .363** .378** .97 4 4.167** .847** .103 -.403** .342** .540** .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 .153** .411** .444** .496** .69 8.028 .602**
.762** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.443** .140* .148* .200** .310** .550** .462** .254** .66 3.089 -.25 8 18.067 -.173* .01 level (2-tailed)
.254** .816** .4624
1 -.48 5.41 3.271** .763** .338** .82 7 13.276** .779** 1 -.366** .521** .380** .697** 1 .5 6 17.380** .337** .491** .505** .5695 .430** .358** .481** .279** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1 1 9.516** .D.195** .438** 1 .312** 1 -.286* .407** 1 -.586** .489**.
210** .615** .8 -.838** .7 -.212** .222** .747** .148** .01 level (2-tailed)
.251** .296** .057 .202** .862** .277** 1 8 19.89 5.199** .082 .448** .293** .033 .286** .304** .545** .218** .390** .259** .137* .228** .402** .00 -.364**.252** .37 6.263** .109 .254** .271** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1 1 10.275** .241** .250** .31 -.183** .310** .895** 1 13 26.526** .051 .387** .367** .9 -.343** .246** .216** .348** 1 6 16.230 .292** .245** .261** .85 19.307**.277** .120 .130** .224**.304** .465** .368** .270** .434** .98 4.588** 1 14 20.229** .9 -.110 .259** .745** 1 7 13.17: Means.338** .131* .235** .264** .016 .191** 1 3 .D.291** .67 7.-181** .158** .296** .288** .38 5.298** .193**.36 -.18 -.356** .412** .103** .428** .355** .174** .422** 1 9 22.209** .210**.166** .311** .370** .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 .03 5.296** .501 .038 .268**.534** 1 18 19.224** .119* 1 21 .78 8.191** .506** .226** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .106 .270** .196** .314** .183** .64 -.343** .095 .366** .378** .202** .189** .423** .003 .308** .516 .565** .162**.49 6.183** .413** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.095 .03 -.254** .481** .075 .383** .320** .373** .230** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .292** .277**.531** 1 10 16.530** .167** .404** .228** .349** 1 16 67.345** .86 -.076 .281** .377** .306** .230** .141* .275** .150* .379** .804** .199**.446** .189** .749** .258** .069 .476** .483** .265** 1 19 25.192**.294** .70 3.395** 1 11 65.101**.340** .97 -.323** .186** .313** .227** .80 17.81 5.17 -.58 9.150* .357** .139** .31 3.454** .81 -.392** .235** .385** .178** .484** .518** .424** 1 12 18.69 -.52 7.725** .305** .856** 1 17 43.302** .192** .081 .278** .42 3.422 -.641** 1 4 4.219** .91 -.281** .17 -.185** .324** .592** .278** .203** .181** .354** 1 5 88.151* .70 1 2 4.735** .221** .70 8.05 -.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.151* .Table 4.508** .166** .109 .241** .221** .7 28.306** .402** .342** .364** .11 12.456** .502** .451** .401** .
Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. all BIT subscales.
. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. externally-focused frustration.18 shows means. However.
Similar to observed results in study 1A. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. and destination-activity orientation.
4. freeway urgency. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. standard deviations and relationships between distal. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.2
Results of Study 2 Table 4.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.5.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. 1B and 1C.
313** 1 .212* .14 27.317** .226** .356** .251** .043 .D.413** .290** .367** .374** .259** .18: Means.5738
.233** .418** .795** 1
* Correlation is significant at .349** .941** 1 .232** .376** .325** .76 48.4683 .409** .179 7.4966
1 .334** .876** .167 .415** .264** .66 1.580** 1 .750** .66 5.Table 4.371** -.758** 1 .165
.201* .323 23.383** .06 20.081 8.48 5.562** 1 .111 -.55 175.183*
1 . 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.035 3.192* -.314** .630** .291** .413** 1 .01 level (2-tailed)
.072 .428** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3.621 3.122 7.30 .139 .50 73.880 .150 -.219** .6803 .182* -.200* -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .269** .025 -.028 1 .917 3.240** .614** .500** .485 11.
correlations between I and distal.4. In general. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. Differing from Studies 1A.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.19. 1B. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. However.19 shows means.
. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1C and 2. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.
As indicated in Table 4.5. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. proximal 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. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. In this study.
454** .112 -.103 .028 .622** .194*
* Correlation is significant at .149 .88
1 .071 .271** .018 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.235** .528** 1 .039 .204* .51 3.3 6.08 15.072 -.13 3.156 .182* -.D.54 11.31 8.114 .45 19.17 20. 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
12.324** .646** .213** .588** 1 .240** .872** .576** .121 .117 .378** 1 .091 .117 .060 .618** 1 .200* .749** .032
1 .0301 .121 .166 .178** .153**
1 .643** .32
7.15 32.120 .286*
1 .225** .84 2.05 3.864** 1 .180** .040 .418** .268** .371** .151 -.149 .048 .853** .235** .128 .150** .116 .025 -.245** .054 .Table 4.721** .152 .023 -.561** 1 .43 8.4 5.070 -.255** .156 .106 .338** 1 .222* .254**
-.030 .401** -.246** .020 .65 75.816** .167** .604** .257** .275** .289** 1 .292** .276** .35 11.234** .263** .177
.067 .11 15.013
.060 -.095 .218* .023 .807** .99 10.443**
1 .141 .42 66.07 8.236** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .240** .165 .10 1.82 5.091 -.261** .658** .172** .12 4.173* .161 -.147** .373** .194* .229** .2000 .213** .74 15.092** .01 level (2-tailed)
.521** .06 2.193* -.32 3.148* .404 .19: Means.171
.636** .061 .197* .117 .82 11.109 -.072 .
01 B=.315. p<.041. H1. and externally-focused frustration. p<.1.102. Study 2: B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=. For the destination-activity factor. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.01 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<.090.04.229.
4.4 was not supported.135. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.034. p<.278. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.063.146.1. p<.1. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=. p<.01.1.202.088 p<.01 B=.125.3 inclusive.117. p<.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=.4. These results supported H1. Study 1B: B=. p<.01 Study 3 B=.01. p<.180.095.080.095. Study 1C: B=.01 and Study 3: B=. but not destination-activity orientation. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.6.01). p<.01. p<. p<. p<.1
Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.1). p<.01
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.172.20).01 B=.238. p<. p<. p<.063. p<. p<.01 Study 1B B=.048. Table 4. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
occurrence.120.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence
Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.6
Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3. freeway urgency.1 through H1.
069.24.01 Study 1C B=.01. Table 4.158.6.01 B=.120. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.091. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.064.01 B=.01 B=.054. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.118. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=.035.01 and Study 2: B=.140.2.21). p<.075 p<. p<. Table 4.22. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=. p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.038.059. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence
Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.165.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
4. freeway urgency. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. These results supported H1. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. respectively).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.05 Study 1B B=.01 B=.019.087.033 p<.23 and Table 4. p<.095.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. p<.01 B=.01. p<.035.
. p<.01). Study 1B: B=.074. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.
27.01 N M SD F
186 88 18 9
3.77 165.68 26.50
25. N M SD F
221 60 19 2
168.30 22.98 171.35 155.82 168.35
64 110 41 17 69
110 81 37 45 29
181.92 157.25 25.06 19.77
8.73 170.Table 4.35 24.05.29 21.88 28.48 171.98 33.01.32 147.23: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302)
Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.56 175.600**
21.35 33.44 178.52 25.22: 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<.184**
. * p<.31 161.15 161.60 185.43 20.
3.01). In Study 1B.05). N M SD F
187 46 16 3
159.01). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.73 24.Table 4.05). and those who almost never travelled (p<. On the other hand.14 15.06
8.73 157.12 161.61 165.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.05. Drivers who travelled about
once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. * p<.
In Study 2.
16.01).25).12 154. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.39 19. 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<. about once every two weeks (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<.77 16.88 167.06 160.060**
In Study 1A.00 14.29
15.01. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.05).01).53 17.81 167. drivers who travelled everyday had
significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 1C.345*
67 69 33 45 38
170.01 14.01).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<.
52 32 7 17 14
Therefore.05.81 175.01.65 73.
24. 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. Not significant N M SD F
3 16 23 91
82.859 11.26 10.52 172.60 72. However.80 22.62 10.97 8. * p<. In other words.31 78. N.58 188.753*
38 48 27 20
77.920 (N. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.81 22.68 20.27 14.47
5.74 77. However.82 162.26).437 (N.89 20. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.316
1.55 73.50 184.S.56
3. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. Not significant N M SD F
77 31 10 4
In Study 3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.26: 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<.55
24. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.S.33 78.09 15.381 10.94 20. N.01.31
2.05. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
.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<.81 161.Table 4.
1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. Again. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. Contrary to the subhypothesis. only H2. ANOVA results for age.2. 1B.
4. In Study 3. 1C and 2.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. only H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. 1B. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.
.1 and H2. In Studies 1A. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.27). the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In this case.
ethnicity and age – were investigated. however. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.3
Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. In Study 2.1 was confirmed. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.6. though. For ethnicity.been predicted by H2.2. the lower was the total BIT score.
S. p<. p<.05 F=11.6.
4.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age
t=2.S. it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A. male
. however. In Study 1B. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).01 F=.05).01 F=9.01). in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=1. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. p<.562.Table 4.
t=3. N. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.S
Not Applicable F=3. 1C and Study 2. N. t(250) = 2.S.05).01 F=2. In Study 1C.2 was confirmed.
Therefore. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In all studies.99.2 were confirmed. p<.12.4
Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control
were also investigated. p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). p<.3 was not supported.00.
t=2.44. p<.98. In Study 1A and Study 2.05 F=4. p<.01 F=1.56.01 F=8.81.S. p<.66.62.05. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.9. N. In Study 3. N. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. Externality-Chance (C).74.53.05. In Study 1B.1 and H3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.68.01 F=19. H3. H3. N. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.
t(120) = 2. 298) = 3. 119) = 5.
In Study 1A.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. E and P scores.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.01).01).01 respectively).05).01. p<. p<.05 and F(2. 1C.490.05 and F(2. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. In Study 1C.566. p<. p<. 249) = 3. F(2.05.05).370.
In Study 1B. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.476.05 and p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 1B. p<. t(299) = 2. p<.05. 298) = 6. F(2.05 respectively. F(2.01 respectively. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. p<.041. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. F(2. 298) = 3.527.503. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. p<. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.941.
For Studies 1A.462.
In Study 2.05 respectively. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 299) = 5. 299) = 3.
3. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.2.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. H4.
. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.
However. t(120) = 2. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1.05. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. H4. H5.
4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.079. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. in Study 2.
Therefore.3 were supported. In Study 1.01). 1B or 1C.3 were not supported. H22.214.171.124 and H4. In addition. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. that age influences hopelessness. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. were supported. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. H5. p<.3.3.1 and H5. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.5
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.2 and H4.Therefore. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.6.2.3 was supported.3. so H4.1.1. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.
354.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .2 and H6. p<. p<. H6. were supported.01 and B = . that internality would influence hopelessness. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -.371. 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 4.254. H6. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. H6.6. In Study 2.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .254. that the three locus of control dimensions
influence hopelessness.341. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.306.6
Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.239.
.01 and B = .01 and (B = . H6.4.
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. was not supported. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. respectively).28).01. respectively). In Study 1C. p<. p<.312. respectively). p<. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.
4. p<.6. were supported. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.1.3.7
Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 respectively).3. p<.01 and B = .342. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.186. p<.
Therefore. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.1. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .290.01. p<.01.2 and H6. In Study 1B.
p<.01 B=.151.28: 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=.151.287.01 B=. H7.01). freeway urgency (B =.05). p<. the higher the hopelessness scores. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<.280. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.2. In Study 1B.153. 1C and 2.287.05). p<.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05) but not for freeway urgency. B=. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.415. p<. p<. p<.151.01 B=. In Study 1C. N.232. p<.157. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=.01). p<.01). it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.349.05 Study 1C B=. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .278.275. In Study 2. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05).157. p<.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=.275.153. p<.05 Study 2 B=. was supported in Studies 1A. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.01).05
In Study 1A.01 B=. p<.141.232.05 B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.S.4. p<.151.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .099. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).05 B=.288.247. p<.01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .247.349.317. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.280.141.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .317. H7. H7. p<. p<. p<. freeway urgency (B = .254. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01).418. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.1. p<.01 B=.415.3 and H7.Table 4. p<.
Therefore. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<.200. externally-focused frustration (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.191.
.191. p<.254. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.
p<.336.S. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.229. that the higher the subscale score for I. N.297.339.006. p<.01 B=. H8.01 B=-.
Table 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.S. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. B=.2.168. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.315. provided support for hypothesis H8.1 and H8.05 B=. p<.208. p<. p<.01 B=-. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.625.1.8
Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total
BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.6. but not H8. p<.3. H8.S.753. N. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).3. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.239.2 and H8.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=-. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<. B=. With regard to H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. p<. p<.01 B=.4. the lower were mean total BIT scores. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 126.96.36.199.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. p<.
. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
B=-.01 B=. With regard to H8. p<. where only H8.044.01 B=-. H8.388.1. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. N.29).
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.05.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.01 (see Figure 4.710. p<. p<.
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
150 low high
Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4. F=4.01 and F=8.1).1).2).704. In Study 1C. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. Further. p<. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. F=7.
. F=4.581.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C. p<.909.01 respectively (see Figure 4. =8. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.272.
62.033.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way
4. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05.00 low high
Figure 4.00 MalaysianIndian
70. p<. B = .00
64.444. p<. Kurtosis=-.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. 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 4.034. However.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.327. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.282. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. 1B and 1C.9
Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A. R2=. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00
66. in Study 2.
.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way
74. First. multiple regression showed mixed results.6. F=4.
p<.167.01. R2=. p<.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=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship
.070.371). B = . and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.BIT Level
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.608.01. F=18. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. 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.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance) Figure 4.463.459.
521.01 t=-.01 t=2.164. t= .677. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
.6. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. N. With motorcycle drivers. F(2.05 t=4. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. However.603.01 (see table 4. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.2. p<.
Table 4. N. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<. N. p<.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores
Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.S. p<. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. N.31).187.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. p<. t(300) = 2. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.05 t=. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.30).01 t=4.690.780. the H9.01.480.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.
4.032. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. In both studies.210.05 Study 1C t=2.01 t=2. 249) = 5. p<. In Study 1B and Study 3.298. p<.690. and t(250) = 2.S t=2.467.05 respectively.S t=1.603. In Study 1C.Therefore. however. and H9. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. were supported.1. p<. p<.820. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.S t=2. 1C and 3.
398.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.422.041. p<. p<. In Study 1C.S. F=2. N. F=1.S.05 Study 1C F=5.S. N.S F=10. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=4.S.432.01. N. mean IND scores of Malay.432. F=1. N. F=2.57. p<.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.567. F(2. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.05.
Table 4. F=. p<. N. N.S. In Study 1B. N. N. F=1.564. p<.629. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. N. F=1. p<.S. 299) = 5.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.01 Study 3 F=1. F(2. N.182. In Study 3. 299) = 4.021. F=5. p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.521.31: 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. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.804. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. mixed results were found. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.077.763. F=2.01).S. N.01).01 F=. F=1.01).561.632.S.01).S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S. F=2. N.01.041.155. 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 3.526.01 F=2. 249) = 10.S.S.904.
In Study 3. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.3 and H11.2. freeway urgency. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. were all supported.3 and H11. H11. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. The higher the total aggression scores. respectively. Therefore. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. In Studies 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.6.1. however.4.29). with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.
4.32). 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. H10.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. VER and IND subscale scores. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration.4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. was supported. H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. were supported. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. only H11. H10.Therefore. 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. However.
. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H11.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.
p<.01. N. and B = .
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<.121.387.048.263. p<.01 B=.01. p<. p<.01. p<. B = . it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. However.01 Study 3 B=. B = .05 (see Figure 4.385. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.380. 1C.01 B=.01 and B = .881. p<. B = . p<. p<. Also.01 B=. p<. Study 2 and Study 3. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. B=. 1B. p<.01 B=. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. N.S.01. p<.01. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. Study 1C and Study 3.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors
Study 1B B=.183. p<. B = .483.5). p<.01 B=.01 B=.01 respectively. B = .01 B=. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.05 B=. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. respectively. p<. p<.324.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.216.545.01 respectively. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. and B = .263.505. p<.204.491. p<.01 Study 1C B=.461.01. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. p<. p<. respectively. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. B = .428. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.565.01 B=.235.540. but not in Study 3.
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.01 B=.S. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.370. p<.438. the higher were total BIT scores.229. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. F=3. Similarly.Table 4.01 and B = .05 B=.520. but not in Study 3.370.
respectively. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.12.00 Low High
Figure 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
44. F=100. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. p<.076. p<. B=-. In other words.00
46. The moderating effect of I was significant. for Study 1B.00
42.929.645. 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=-. F=81. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. Kurtosis=-.01.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.003.01.6.516.05.131.172. p<.297.271.00 IndianMalaysian
48.6. p<. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.01.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
4.316.362.961.100. R2=. B=-.
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency
694. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
4.01 and B = . p<. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.297. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.12. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.704. R2=. p<.897. respectively). Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. Kurtosis=-. F=94.794. R2=.507.01.
Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score
Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score
Aggression Level Figure 4. Kurtosis=-. p<. respectively).015.01 respectively. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.297.088.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. F=78. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.015.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. F=71.360.271. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Kurtosis=. p<.109.069.01. R2=.01.369.387. and the moderating effects of C and P were
. In Study 1B.606. B = .431. Kurtosis=.271. R2=.6.117. R2=.6).757. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. F=91. R2=. p<.
Therefore.01 and B = . 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. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.302.7).2.significant. p<. that the internality. B = . with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.01 respectively. p<. 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. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
.332. H12. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12.3.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores
Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores
Aggression Level Figure 4. and the moderation effect was not significant.
Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. However.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.263.05.
4. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. p<. Only H12.05.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.885. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers.737.6. p<. and about revenge F(2. 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<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.279. p<.01). F(2.3.01 but not on about the derogation of others.1.05). 249) = 4.343. 249) = 5. p<.01. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.05).
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. t(249)=2. H122 and H12.01. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.
. p<. 248) = 3. t(250) = 3. Also. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. with the sample of taxicab drivers.314.
1. This means that. the higher the total HAT scores. H13.3. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.2 and H14. B = .6. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. p<. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. respectively. was not supported.394. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. H13. B = . that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. p<.
Therefore. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.224.01. p<. H14. p<.192. p<. B = .01 and B = . H14. were supported.3. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.
4. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.
. This means that.1 and H13. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. externally-focused frustration. B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. (that thoughts about physical aggression.01.413.01. were supported. B = . that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.379. p<.307. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. on total BIT score were also tested.364. p<. was partially supported.
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. B = .01.01 and destination-activity orientation.01.2.Therefore.277. freeway urgency. the higher were total BIT scores.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. was supported.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<.01. In other words.297.8).297. Physical Aggression and Revenge. F=57.911. p<.013.4. R2=. B = . also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.085).05. Kurtosis=.809.01. R2=.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score
Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score
Aggression Level Figure 4.072). 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.188. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
. p<.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.565.002. F=55.6. 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.-554.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=.
3.297.01. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. However. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kurtosis=. H15. were supported.207.092). was supported. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.1 and H15.6.01. p<.01.026.33).475. R2=.2. B = . F=59. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. H15.
4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.Aggression was significant.
. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. was not supported. B = .294. p<.246.
2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses
STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S S N.S S N.S N.1.S.S S S N.1.S P.S S S N.1.2.2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.1.S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S P.S S S N.Table 4.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S S S N.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S S S N.S N.2.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S P.S N.S S S N.3. S N.S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S P.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S
N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.3:Externally-focused frustration 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 H3.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.S
.S 1C P.S N.S N.2.S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.S N.S S N.S S S S S N.2.S S S S S S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 3 P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S P.S N.
S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S
.S 1B N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S 2 N.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S= Not Supported.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S S S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S S S N. blank=Not Applicable N. P.S S N.S P.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S S S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S P.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.S N.S N.3.S N.S
P.S= Partially Supported.S S S S S P.S
STUDY 1C N.S N. N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S 3 N.3.Table 4.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S S S S S S S S P.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S P.S S S N.S P.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.
1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Partially Supported.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S N.S S S N.S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. N.Table 4.S S 2 3 P.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S
STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S
.S= Not Supported. P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S S S S P.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S N.S S S N.
93 . AQ.068 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. P. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P.96 RMSEA . F2.05522 . AQ. AQ I.00126 . P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).087 .02 d. P. HAT I. BHS. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.
Table 4. HAT I.060
Note: Internality (I). HAT Proximal Factors F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. BHS I. C. Hopelessness. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.97 63. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.96 . F3 F1. F2.g.58 35. F3. 2002). F4 F1. two were worthy of further examination.00000 . C. P I.00111 .7. F2.00000 .
4.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.93 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way.1
Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control. P.045 . F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2). Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. freeway urgency. Aggression (AQ).97 . This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. Externality Powerful-Other (P). C. F2. F3.7
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 8.90 110.38 100. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Study 2: motorcycle driver.80 104. Hopelessness (BHS). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested. F3.4. AQ.093 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .93 . Externality Chance (C). C.f. F4 F1.34. F2. F4 F1. C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. e. BHS.00000 . F3. F2. F3.
. F4 χ2 49. 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. C.102 .
5. . RMR=.045. For Model C6.
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.destination-activity orientation (F4).35.94. Externality (Chance). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.
AGFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.10).99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. which are detailed in sect. Externality (Powerful-Other).060. .
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. To aid this discussion.=33.42. with path coefficients = -. CFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.14. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.13.92) on accident involvement. .
. values were: NFI=. For Model C5. .96. Externality (Chance). subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. . but not as good as for C5.26. RMR=. RMSEA=.043. RMSEA=.10). GFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. and PGFI=. AGFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4. C6. CFI=. For Model C6.f.91. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.96.97.29 and .28 and .42.92) on accident involvement. . with path coefficients = -.
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. ECVI=. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. d.043.f. ECVI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.48.98).97. Externality (Powerful-Other).51 and PGFI=. For Model C5.
An alternate model. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.23 respectively (see Figure 4.97.=24. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. GFI=.3. 5. of the BIT score.02.26.32. d.
. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
. *p<.Distal Context
Internality -. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.79*
.99 P-value = .22* Hostile Automatic Thought
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 d.63*
. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.57* Injury Occurrence
.f =24 CFI=.045 RMR=.97 GFI=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.29* Aggression (AQ)
Accident Involvement .32* Externality (Chance) .13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.31* Externality (Chance) .98 P-value = .92*
Accident Involvement . *p<.96 d.f =33 CFI=.50*
.02 GFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
.00126 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context
Internality -.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=63. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.29* Aggression (AQ)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.63*
.58* Injury Occurrence
. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.
66). F2.41 d. F2. Hostility (HOS).=61. F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2).00000 . ANG.00000 GFI RMSEA . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. HAT-P. F4 F1.f.f. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.91 . HOS. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.91 . ANG.92 . F4 χ2 108. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. VER.078.In addition. Angry (ANG). IND. IND.084 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4. 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).080 .
. HAT-P. HOS. VER.66 153. IND PHY.73 169.80) on the accident involvement.10. IND.084 . ANG. HAT-D. ANG. VER. F3 F1. HAT-R PHY. GFI=.65 and .66 131. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).078
Note: Physical aggression (PHY).95). d. F2. HAT-D.41.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Distal Factors PHY. HOS. HAT-D. F3 F1. IND.00000 . HAT-D. F2. HOS. Indirect aggression (IND). HAT-P.00000 .081 .93 .35).91. HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. HAT-P.94 169. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4.91 .00111 . F3. Verbal aggression (VER). HOS. CFI=. path coefficients = . RMSEA=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Aggression (AQ). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). F2. F3. ANG. F3.13 respectively.
058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.000 N=252 RMSEA=.66* .Distal Context
Physical Aggression .63* Indirect Aggression .61*
.f =61 CFI=.80*
.72* .95 P-value = . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.62*
Physical Aggression .41 GFI=.91 d.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.58*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.65* .68* Aggression (AQ)
.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
.69* Anger .
F3. P I.4. GFI=. C. F2.94.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.047. Hopelessness (BHS). F4
23 28 23
. d. F4 F1. F3 F1.33 33. path coefficients = -.36).2
Study 2 In Study 2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.12 d. C.f. BHS I. CFI=. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.66) on the accident involvement.12).94 . RMSEA=.98).07580 .95 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.
. F2.12. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). p-value GFI RMSEA
.7. Externality Powerful-Other (P). The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. F3. P. the participants were motorcycle drivers. 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.=28. BHS
F1. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.80 respectively (see Figure 4. P.94
Note: Internality (I). F2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.058 .f.047 . C.65 and . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. freeway urgency (F2). Externality Chance (C).
17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.83*
Crash Occurrence .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
.65* Externality (Chance)
.f =23 CFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.12 GFI=. *p<.80*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.95 d.57*
χ2=29.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.78*
BIT4 .99 P-value = .89*
Externality (Powerful Other)
.047 RMR=.Distal Context
BIT2 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.
The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.20 and .00524 .061.f. Hopelessness (H).=21. CFI=.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Distal Factors I. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. path coefficients = -. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). C. F2. C.20 respectively (see Figure 4. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.82 28 . AQ F1. AQ F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.061 Note: Internality (I).068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.4.95 . F4 Crash Occurrence 31.22 23 . F3.7. RMSEA=.93 .95. The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.95).39. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. I.97 . Internality and AQ.40) on the accident involvement. P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).35265 . freeway urgency (F2).03084 . F4 50. 37.027 I.3
Study 3 In Study 3. C. F3.06743 .94 . Externality Chance (ExC).37). the participants were taxi drivers. F3.
.079 Injury Occurrence I. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. d.f. p-value GFI RMSEA
Crash Occurrence.39 21 . P Proximal Factors F1. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.13). C. GFI=. P. AQ F1. but not Externality.59 17 . F2. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F3. F2. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Model included locus of control.
Externality (Powerful Other)
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.20* Externality (Chance)
.39 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.061 RMR=.f =21 CFI=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.03
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. *p<.13
.95 P-value = .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.95 d.39*
-.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.61*
8.8. and. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.
Table 4. 2 and 3 are satisfied.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. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.
4.39). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.
. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.1
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.4. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect.2
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the
relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.8
Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
accident involvement. consistent with path analysis results.38). Therefore.
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
4.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.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 4.4
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.40). in Studies 1A. 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.
Table 4. where the
.41).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
Table 4.8. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).
C or P and the two crash outcomes.
Table 4.41: 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
.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.
automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.663. p <. p <.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 1A vs.01.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8.993. Study 1A vs.9.162. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 1B vs. p <. 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. Study 2: t(421)= -3. p <.01. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -4.Table 4.9
Comparison of Automobile Drivers.05. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
4. Study 1B vs.442.
. Study 2: t(422)= -2. p <. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness). It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.837.426. p <.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.1
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 1C vs. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 1A vs.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.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
01.687. t(986)= 30. and to injury occurrence.01.186. p <.01. Study 1C vs.484. p <.
4. Study 1C vs. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Study 2: t(421)= -7. Study 2: t(372)= -5. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -6. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
orientation”. p <. and t(986)= 35. respectively. Also. t(253)= 8.
. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. t(986)= 37.801.211.3
Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
dimension. t(986)= 7. Study 1A vs.01.01.01.01. p <. p <.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Study 1B vs.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.01. Study 2: t(372)= -7. p <.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension.
4. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01. p <.01. p <. p <.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6. p <.01.614.926. Study 1A vs. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.747. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. t(253) = 2.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.261.402. Study 1B vs.433.977.9.9. Study 1A vs.200.01. p <. p <. t(986)= 34. p <.577. p <. p <. Study 1C vs.704. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(986)= 3. “freeway urgency”.2
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. t(986)= 6.837.775. t(986)= 5.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.861. p <.01.
01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 11.
. p <. Also.01.01. t(253)= 39.982. t(253)= 35.01.016.567. t(253)= 31. p <. p <.946. t(253)= 8. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. “freeway urgency”. p <. p <. t(253)= 8.01. and t(253)= 37. p <.881.737.977.01.01and to injury occurrence. p <. respectively.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.
1991). upon examination. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar.
Elander et. Elander et al. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics.1).
In an earlier study. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. (1993). 2. including gender.2.CHAPTER 5
5.4. al. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
. 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. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Evans. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 2002b).1
A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. 1995.. multi-factorial perspective. They found gender. Often. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. freeway urgency. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). 1993.
In other words. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. if different. As a result. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. 1991).
But findings were more complex than that. All too often. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. Further. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. BIT. though. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. hopelessness. is that factors interact with each other. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. the proximal variable.total BIT score and component scores. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”.
In the present research.
. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. In the contextual mediated model. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. except with taxicab drivers. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 188.8.131.52). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
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. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. SD=11. SD=131. SD=22. Of course.1 months. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.16.
5. respectively). social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.01years. For taxicab drivers. there are other possible influences.5. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.hierarchy. 20. respectively). This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. SD=1.3.25 years.1.2
Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers The present research also compared differences in locus of control among three
ethnic groups in the culturally diverse Malaysian society.6 months as licensed drivers. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.
For taxicab drivers. Inclán. They were also more experienced (266.7 months.53. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.2 years. Because of occupational demands.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. as well. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.
In the present study. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. and 36.63. Malaysian-Indian automobile
. SD=. By virtue of their age and occupation. SD=1.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.
Carment (1974) also found. The finding that Indian-
. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. when compared to Canadian students. 2005). spousal selection. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. along with selfpromotion skills. influence peddling and status-related privileges. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure.drivers were significantly less internally controlled than Malay and Malaysian-Chinese drivers but scored higher than the other groups on both externality dimensions (chance and powerful others). In an environment where career choice. perhaps due as argued earlier. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. were necessary to succeed. corrupt practices. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. Devashayam. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system.
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. financial matters and social affiliations are made. rife with bureaucracy. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. 2003. however.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. 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 first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez.8 million in 1996. where Cheung et al. 1966.5% annually from 9.
5. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1998.5 million in 1991 to 11. including locus of control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Salih &Young. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. and. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.
Again. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. by extension. 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). 1981). Gomez. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. Nandy. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. as a group. 1999. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.7 in 1996. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 2002. 1999. It is also
consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. as a result. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. Sendut. an internal locus of control. but two possible influences stand out. 1999). Indeed.3.3
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.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.
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. Clayton. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Lynch. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2002. 2003. 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. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. by the enraged driver. Nonetheless. Huff. Consistently.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. Lawton & Nutter. Jenkins. Dukes. 2008. bringing them closer together in outlook. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 2000. there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Oetting & Salvatore.women’s friendship patterns. 318). 2002). aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic.
The second factor toward reducing differences between ethnic groups may be related to government efforts promoting a multi-cultural scripting of the national identity (Bunnell. 2001. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. King & Parker. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Miller & Rodgers.
5. more recently. 2001)
In the present research. Miles & Johnson. Parkinson.
Petrilli et al. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Deffenbacher. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility.conditions. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. Parker. during such incidents. Their findings were replicated in the present
research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. 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”). (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). With taxicab drivers. 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. physical aggression. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. Further.
Underwood et al. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. (1996) and Deffenbacher. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Finland and the Netherlands.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
. on a journey by journey basis. Oetting et al. Underwood et al.
and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). as well.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. 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.. in the samples studied here. Such responses. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. That is. the world and others). 2006).. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge.
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. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives.strongly. 1997). but not when they involved the derogation of others. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 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
The effects of aggression on behaviour. 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. In essence. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. although still significantly.
true to operant learning principles. 1995. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. but there may be more to it than that. Meichenbaum. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. 401). 1987.
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 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. 1994. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Finally.. Certainly.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex.e. Novaco. 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. 1977).are determined by chance or fate. “in ergonomics. 1979. 2004. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. or self-talk.. Language loaded with emotional content. in the form of hostile automatic
thoughts. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out.e. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. Hochschild. 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. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein.
. like any other mental task. Downe & Loke. Generally. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. and particularly with negative emotion. (2003). aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1990.
Similarly. p. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that.
Hinojosa. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. Carretie. 1993). As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.
5. aggressive emotionality. Performance
(e. 1996. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. 2000. 2002.g. In fact. Taylor & Fragopanagos. 1997). Trabasso & Liwag. p.5
Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Dien. Watson & Wan.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
. Lambie & Marcel. 2004. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Stein.. 2000. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 162).1
Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. MartinLoeches. and attempting to exercise control over. 2005). hostile automatic thoughts. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Mercado & Tapia.5. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Making sense of. Tomkins. 2002. 1999.Robbins. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Martin. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.
advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. Karl Jöreskog. First. EQS and AMOS. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. Finally.. p. or independent variables. 1998). leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. 2006). the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. including dependent and independent variables. 2006). who in 1970. SEM appears to be the only technique capable of examining a set of relationships simultaneously when the phenomena of interest are complex and multidimensional (Hardy and Bryman. 2004. and perhaps most important. a multivariate technique. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. In addition. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. factors represented by multiple variables.
. involved in the analysis. Gavin and Hartman (2004). Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. 2000). When composing a model. 2004. 2006). SEM can not only tell how well the predictors..
According to Williams. or dependent. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL.. By estimating and removing measurement error. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. explain criterion.434). The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. Hair et al. Second. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. Structural equation modelling (SEM). or latent.
Shook et al.5. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. GFI. (2004) has been critical of most studies. Williams et al. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. TLI.2
Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory. as suggested by Hair et al. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool.5.
Shook. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. CFI.e. 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. Therefore. the comparative fit index (CFI). and the root mean square residual were included.e. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. etc)
. Sümer (2003) added that. (2006). when assessing the fits of measurement models.
Hair 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. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. SRMR. Ketchen. (2004) noted that. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. In the present research. the goodness of fit index (GFI).
Sambasivan & Ismail. 2000).
It is argued here that. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. we would argue. 2001. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.
5. 1998. CFI and CFI) greater than . GFI. 2001. 1998). It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Maruyama. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 2006. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. CFI. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.90. 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. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative... 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. Fit index values (e. As a general rule. 2006). This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. Hair et al.. be a process that balances utility with statistical
.In the present research. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. Md-Sidin.g.5. Structural equation modelling should.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. significant p-values can be expected.
At the same time. RMSEA lower than .
7. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. stating that. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
There is some support for this position in the literature. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. In some cases.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.10) excluded the fourth factor.
In the case at hand. Thus. 158). More importantly. “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. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. two structural equation models. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. as suggested by Byrne (2001).3). of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. 88). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. 1C5 and 1C6. 4. However. and practical considerations (p. destination-activity orientation. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.1. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. statistical. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research.soundness.
42 11. C. C.02 0.02 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.499 0. AQ.034 97. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. P. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.94 0.Table 5. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0. F2.96 0.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. P. F2.043 129.48 30. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.045 0.02 0.97 0.96 1. 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.97 0.97 1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39 Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.91 0.99 0.
.909 0. AQ. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.060 0. Injury Occurrence 35.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.
Fit Statistics (Threshold values)
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.
2006. Schwebel. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. For practical reasons. in particular. Parker. they should be dropped.
Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. 1995. Storey. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Manstead & Stradling. et al. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical.48. goodness-of-fit.42. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. in this analysis. 1990. 1996).
. Reason. Nahn & Shapiro.. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. but still acceptable. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity.
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. farther along. 2006). By selecting Model 1C5. Hair et al. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Kayumov.1). it is 0. based on the notion that each variable included may. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. while for Model 1C6. However.
aggression.g. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.6. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . In Study 1C. 2003). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
.5. 2001. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. for automobile drivers sampled. 1991. on crash outcomes.21). . freeway urgency.5.1 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.35 and . Rothengatter. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.5. and hostile automatic thoughts). indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. externality-chance. with five distal factors (internality. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. 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.66).29).34) and injury occurrence (r = . externality-powerful other.
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.14. crash occurrence (r = -. . Evans.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.28 respectively). Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. externality-powerful other.1).35. .4. via BIT.26.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . The results suggested that the alternative model. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.45). externally-focused frustration.4
Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
5.28 and . externalitychance. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . Distal factors (locus of control: internality. Sümer.
internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.55). freeway urgency. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. 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.
5. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. externally-focused frustration. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.20) and injury occurrence (r = . externality-chance. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.
. freeway urgency.23) and injury occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. crash occurrence (r = .24).41). Aggression.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . which sampled motorcyclists. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .25). and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.65 and . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.5. Results indicated that the first alternative model.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. crash occurrence (r = .4. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. had a better fit than other alternative models. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. on the other hand.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.
for the sample of taxicab drivers. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. with the sample of taxicab drivers.20 and . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. externally-focused frustration. However. had a better fit than alternative models. with four distal factors (internality. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. hopelessness. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.5. as a result.4. externality-powerful other. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. Distal
factors. via BIT.
5. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and.
.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. externality-powerful other and aggression). crash occurrence.5. freeway urgency. externality-chance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. aggression). on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. for crash outcomes. such as internality. externality-chance. 4.5. to measure outcome.5
What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. For motorcyclists. crash occurrence. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. Finally. had no significant effect on BIT scores. in turn and indirectly. Results indicated that the third alternative model.6. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. their crash occurrence.3). All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.
Huguenin. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. chosen at random from taxi stands. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability.6. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. however. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.
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.6 5. a total of five samples were taken.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. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.
Sekaran (2003) points out.
In the present research.
. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 278279). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.5. 2004). Further. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
were. To a large extent. 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. 2005. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 2005). an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.
2%). it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.In Malaysia. with a mean age of 20. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.6%. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Study 1C: 99.13 years (SD = 1. as elsewhere. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. 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.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99.2 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. in Malaysia.
Table 5. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.31. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.2% and Study 2: 99. Selangor. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident.2). Sabah. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Since. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Study 1B: 100%. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=.55).
With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.
. The most populous state.
It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. in this case.000 2. In both cases.2 3.818.2 7.000 1.286 1.880 3. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 2.9 9. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.000 3.100.3 (12) 11.
.300.2 11.500 1.
Table 5.6 (10) 7.6 6.503.2: 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) 7.004.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.576 2.000 2.8 (6) 6.000 Per cent of national population 26.4 5. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.500.6 0.5 (4) 4.9 (9) 7.887. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.260.2 (11) 12.7 (14)
But.000 215.2 (5) 0.0 8.807 733.200. For that reason.674 1.2 (13) 11.396.188 1.387.150. Table 5.7 (2) 2.6 5.9 (3) 2.1 (7) 8. Not all states have the same number of drivers.8 6.Table 5.0 4.0 12.2 (1) 3.5 (8) 3.000 1.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.
230 266.19 3.84 11.041 92.50 29.75 4.163 10.137 698.251 324.89 3.496 187.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.88 2.46 8.617 10.026 10.003 10.029 273.735 165.93 9.93 0.91 2.785 393.63
12.88 3.144 12.198 156.774 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
12.22 17.064 9.68 7.212 39.55 7.76 3.606 24.34 11.561 1.467 25.600 135.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.635 1.588.97 12.98 0.19 7.96 3.27 14.92 25.43 2.4 4.90 5.85 1.725 70.36 8.170 13.24 0.093 5.24 2.37 3.16 2.768 6.05 2.490 525.34 3.19 4.13 6.28 3.428.20
12.70 3.104 6.45 9.Table 5.35 4.
221 36.93 9.656 821.10 9.88 3.20
13.02 7.27 14.66 11.64 1.112 347.49 0.33 4.615.003 10.48 1.37 3.561 1.82 9.74
.144 12.93 7.305 276.722 255.79 13.133 705.989 6.59 12.46 5.606 24.856 310.170 13.76 3.283 770.15 5.496
Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.75 5.22 3.38 4.43 2.958
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
12.02 10.212 39.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.029 273.59 1.064 9.28 3.88 2.4 4.36 8.288 444.38 0.467 25.768 6.49 12.63 11.46 14.727 161.45 2.992 776.03 4.98 0.026 10.725 70.104 6.35 4.92 25.617 10.64 2.Table 5.14 7.679 90.995 233.
This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.824** . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. 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.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin
1 2 3
1 . Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. At least on these dimensions.814**
1 .3 and 5.5: 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) .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .
Table 5. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
Of course. it can be argued that they were. participants came from – or. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. was representative of a high risk driver population.796**
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. at least.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. it is possible to say that sampling.903** .
Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. e. However.
accidents. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. attitudinal factors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. 1998. 1998. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. the data has to be disaggregated. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. violations and accidents should be linked together. 296). 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. Rothengatter. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
. in studying driving behaviour. accident distributions by age. Exposure. unless the variation within the group is very small. The problem. demographic factors. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.
5.g.. Again. as in other psychological research. Elander et al.2
Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002).characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Much important data is available in official statistics. Hatakka. 1979). 2001). None of these
variables can be substituted by group means. Keskinen. however.6.
errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e.
In the present research.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. though. Particularly. 1996).3
Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. Yet.
5. therefore. The assumption. In future studies. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.g.
. 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. muscle tension. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. 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. as in a study reported by Chalmé. as well. blood pressure. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. 13). combined interview and observational methods. in studies of driving behaviour..g. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups.6. Visser and Denis (2004). the longer the time period for data collection. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. for instance. the more information is lost through memory lapses.. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report 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. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.
The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 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.4
Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months.6. The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
5. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 2002).
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. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. First. 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. Mercer. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. individual standard.In the present research. 1999).
Unfortunately. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 1971). and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. Second. and the hypothesis (H2. 1997. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. as well. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.
although this has not been firmly established. this
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 1993. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. because they have taken place recently. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 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. 2008). in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. but not always. Kahneman. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 181). as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 2003. 1982). Specifically. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 121). “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. eventful or recent.
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. 1973. 2003). There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. Slovic & Tversky.. 1993). But. in other words. 1974). but because they are inherently easier to think about. 2004).
. Wood & Boyd. 2002). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. Often. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. p.frequency that were used in this research.
In much the same way. frequency or distribution in the world (p.
Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. 2000). on one hand. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. 2001) . but training participants in standardised record-keeping. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe.
Of course. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. 1991). Sansone. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. during periods of low traffic volume.
Deffenbacher et al. for example. Similarly. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement.In the Malaysian environment. in their studies of roadway aggression.
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. with adequate street lighting and hevily-enforced speed limits is not the same as driving the same 30 kilometres at night on a remote expressway at higher speeds. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings.
Finally. asked participants to record the time of day. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. road conditions. where driving histories generally include lengthy. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. auditing the accuracy of drivermaintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be beyond the capability and scope of the present research. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. (2003)..
Michon. In the present research.7. collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 2002. 2005).7 5. Ranney.1
Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified..
Further research is required. 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. Good theories are simple. during the study design process. have high information content. 2004). 1985. 2004). 2005). over-arching theory (Rothengatter. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge.
In addition. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
.studies undertaken. Summala.
To summarise. 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. 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. 1994). It was felt. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 1997).g. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. are testable and contain no contradictions. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 1991). selfreported measure used here.
create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. 294). 94).
Hauer (1987). 32). Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. The answer to this question is possibly yes. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically.patterns of relationships. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. at times. The answer is probably not. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p.
Throughout the development of traffic psychology. in particular to structure data. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
. 1997. or represent processes. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. 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. check facts. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. if they are modest in ambition. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. p. often in graphical form (Grayson. on the other hand. stating that.
While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. In this case. Yet. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. and if they are resultscentred (pp. for instance.
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. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. In the present research.3). 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. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. In
. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. 2. hopelessness. who argued that. 304).entire spectrum of traffic behaviour.
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. 95-96). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress.
psychoticism. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. sensation seeking (Sümer. Kerlinger (2000) and others. 2003).
5. The contextual mediated framework. conscientiousness.4). 2. extraversion. it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. crash-free driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. as defined by Grayson (1997).
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures.. 2005) were included as distal variables. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. for instance. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. With several exceptions. While the present research
. anxiety. while still very much a model and not a theory.other studies. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving.7.2
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. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. According to Ranney (1994). The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving. depression. not on everyday driving. openness.3. much current research. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.
Within their proposed conceptual framework. Conversely. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. They argued that locus of control.
Following this reasoning. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. On the other hand.did not test any of those theories specifically. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. As a result. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour.
. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. 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. no matter how reliable a safety device. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. or at least to react more slowly. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and.
consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. al. 2004). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde.3
Driver Selection.7. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Typically. Summala. external locus of control and hostile attributions. 1996). Specifically. task capability (Fuller. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. 2005. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour.In the present research.
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Christ et al. 2002. Gidron & Davidson. scarce resources for screening drivers. could be screened out. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.
. 1982). once identified. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 1997. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. though. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 1996). Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen.
1957). and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. education. World Health Organisation. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.4
Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5. From this has emerged the growing
.4).7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. 1961. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 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.4.
At the same time.7.
5. Unlike 100 years ago. 1957. and machines are highly intricate (p.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. teams of humans. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles.7. for the last fifty years. or legal intervention.5.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. depending on environmental factors. for instance. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. Suda & Ono. These have been applied to in-car. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. or the adaptive automation concept. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems.
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Maggio & Jin. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA).6). Sadano. (Bishop. 2001). Stough. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. 2001). roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. 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. 2003). operator workload and performance (Inagaki. At the same time. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS.
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track.
. 2005). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. In the case of LKA.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Murazami.
Brown & Noy. 1998).
The present research also found that freeway urgency. was associated crash outcomes.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Parsons. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. 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. changes in traffic speed. 2004.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 1999. Tassinary. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. Herzog. 2000). 2003. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 1997). traffic
. Fountaine and Knotts. in particular to pursue environmental. Ulrich. Black. 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. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Richardson & Downe. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 1993.6). such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE).
This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. journey purpose or other human factors. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 1996.
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. 1996. Proctor. however. Dietze. Engineering
interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. however. questions of alternative urban structure. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have.
. 1992). and whether this information varies according to the situation. inexperienced drivers. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003).
Probably. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 309). 1991). 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. p.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden.
management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas.
. keeping.Table 5. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).1
lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. and likelihood of. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding
Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. infrastructure. reversible corrections through a motorlanes.1. departure warning. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. “rumble strips” in expressways. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. – Doppler radar based cooperative vehicle highway systems operating at 24 GHz systems (CVHS) – wireless to detect vehicles within 2 to communication systems 10 feet of the right-side blind embedded in the roadway spot. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. lane road conditions. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. transitions for. etc. 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.
Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. ACC systems provide modifications. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.
. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1. point.. are travelling. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. than the safety standard.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. traffic lights) safe.2
lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. 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”. to in-vehicle display terminals. Radar. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. generally pilot”. the systems intersection modification.1. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. 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. the host vehicle. including those in adjoining lanes.1
Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes.
vertical displacement. “Speed tables”. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. Such devices include chicanes.
. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.1.
H 1. environment and other frustrating stimuli. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. 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. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. signs with calming or vehicles.(continued)
Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes.
weather-related road conditions. at least.
. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. notification of construction ahead. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. H 1. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.(continued)
electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. This information allows drivers to avoid or. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.1. safety messages.
the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. It suggests that. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia.7. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. to some extent. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. teachers or the police. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance.4.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. The present research suggests that.
. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. however. 2001). it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. 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. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. like community centres or places of worship.5. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. 73).
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic.4. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. legal measures change least often. was studied in a
. N6). 1030). 265).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. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. however. They also stated. 2007. 1978. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. The bias of false consensus. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. 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. such as visibility of enforcement. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic.
First. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.
Second. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. that “Of these three
approaches. or an internal locus of control. from the findings of the present research.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Stradling. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Azjen & Fishbein. 1991. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen.
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
. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). By doing so. after all. is allowed to occur in a Just World. 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.sample of drivers by Manstead. 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). to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Parker. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 2001. 1992). Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that.” 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). Ajzen. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 498). Reason & Baxter.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. on the other.
By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. to traffic regulations. Similarly. or not adhere.
. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).drivers’ decisions to adhere. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not.
Wállen Warner & Åberg.
. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 2002.
In doing so. gender.g. 2003. Results have indicated that. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which.. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Sümer. Iverson & Rundmo. 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. 2005. it was concluded that driver experience.CHAPTER 6
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. Sümer et al.. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. ethnicity. In the present research. locus of control. as proximal to the crash outcomes. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. as expected. hopelessness. when risky. age. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e.
A contextual mediated model.
1986. 2003). The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. the best fit usually implies the best model. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. Further. 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. 1995. 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. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. and accident risk (e. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde.
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. or external locus of control. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. 1987). 1982). In the present research. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic.g. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. This is
Of the variables studied. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. 1974).In the current literature. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 1973). task capability (Fuller.. In most cases. Hoyt.. it is argued here. Montag & Comrey. However. Harrell. like Brown and Noy (2004). one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. as well as statistical grounds. Some inter-ethnic differences in
road engineering and ergonomics.aggression were observed. Groeger & Rothengatter. 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. they
. Several authors (e. in combination. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. It is argued that this is a
In interpreting these effects. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. However. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. For example.. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). 2005. 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.g. 1998. Huguenin. as well. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. cultural anthropology. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. Rothengatter. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic.
Indeed. management. 313). regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes.
It is to be hoped that future preventive measures and research will continue along the multi-disciplinary path that has characterised both traffic psychology and road engineering as emerging areas of specialisation. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. findings with regard to four
components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere. injuries and death.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p.
. educational and enforcement spheres. In the present research. Through a multi-disciplinary approach.
Abdullah. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. P. (2003).. Petaling Jaya. Radin Umar. Psychological Testing and Assessment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 25.
Åberg. 10(2). 5. L.. Bahrain..
Abdul Kareem. L. Third edition. MY: Pearson. and Law. T. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.H. (2002). (2003). E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Mohd Zulkifli. M. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. individual crash level approach. 12. 169-177.S. N. A. 35. Journal of Safety Research. Subramaniam. (1979).
Aiken. and Pederson..A. A. 289-296.
Abdul Rahman. A.E. R.
Ahmad Hariza.T. (2003). (2002).
Adolphs. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists.R. R. P.E. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. Mohd Nasir. 1867-1874. A.
af Wählberg. and Anurag. H. (1999). 38(5). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. (2007). and Kulanthayan. 581-587. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences.REFERENCES
 Abdel-Aty. Drinking and driving: intention. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Puzzles & Irritations.H. (2005). S.B. H. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. K. (1993). 473-486. 31-39.
(2001). 52. 33(3). (Eds. 291-307. Journal of Sleep Research. M. and Beckmann. A. J. S. J. I. The theory of planned behaviour. 27-58. Aggressive Behavior. Nature and operation of attitudes. W. and Christian. Personality.
Åkerstedt.E. (2003). 10(6). Tubré. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. W.
Ajzen. 47. 179-211. and Kecklund (2001). T. B. Women’s Studies International Forum.
Armstrong. Bell.. 187-195. and Fishbein. 340-342.. (2001). Learning.
Arthur. Current Psychology: Developmental. 50(2). and Kerrich. I. M.A.
Amin. J. and Haigh.H. Annual Review of Psychology. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. 623-633. C. A. In Kuhl. Edwards. 7. Human Factors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 303-313. Day. J.) European Review of Social Psychology.
Archer. 404-415. E. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. M. 10.
Ajzen. gender and early morning accidents. (1987). (1952). 22(3).) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Age. (1997).105-110. A. and Tubré.
Ajzen. In Stroebe. (2005).. (1985).T. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. J. Biometrics. (Eds. 23.D. London: John Wiley & Sons. S.C. T. and Hewston.J.G. (2004). I. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. (1991). I.
C. and Carbonell Vaya E. M. and Carson. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. (1997). W. 2007 from http://www. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Rothengatter.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.
Asian Development Bank (2005). J. (1994). F.
. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. K.
Aschenbrenner. Human Performance. and Dischinger. Barrett. (2001).) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. and Alexander.
Bakri Musa. When hope becomes hopelessness. and Tortosa. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. 34. P. G. (1998).
Aylott. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Baron.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. and Tortosa. NL: Styx. T.L. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. S.-E. Manila: Philippines. P. 89-105. D.. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. 279-284. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. October 18). Wilde. 231-234. GJ. 51(6). R.
Barjonet. (2002). 34.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Retrieved April 4.
Austin. Boston: Kluwer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. R. and Kenny.M..-E. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). 21-30). (1991).V. R. (Eds..
Ballesteros. B. (2002).M. and Biehl. (1986). P.bakrimusa. P-E.S. M. 1173-1182. 2(4). In Barjonet. (Ed.F. strategic and statistical considerations. 14-29). In Trimpop. F.M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. Groningen. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.D. (Eds.A. 4(2). (2005.
J. and Simons-Morton (2002). Hostility and Violence.C. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. 88. (1987a).K. P. G. (pp. In (Flinders.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.C. and Bonnett. New York: Brunner/Mazel. (Eds. A. 157-179). New York: Cambridge University Press. New York: Teachers College Press. D. (1975).T. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. (1993). 1146-1149. D.T. In Rubin. Health Education and Behavior.
Beck. Palliative Medicine.
Beck. L. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. (1987b).
Beck. Weissman.H. (1974). A.T. Hartos. J.
. (1980). 73-84. 588-606. and Weissman. E. 29(1). Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.T. 19. Cognitive models of depression. 218-229). and Mills. R.
Beck.F. (Ed.E.G. A.T. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.. D. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.G. Lester. 234(11). R.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.
Beck. Kovacs. (1996). The level of and relation between hope.. D. A. (1999).
Beck. K.T.S. Cognitive therapy. 5-37. A. In Zeig. and Berg. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. A. and Trexler.F.. Theory: the necessary evil.T. (Ed. H.
Benzein. 1(1). (1976). Psychological Bulletin. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.J.
Beck. A. and Loftus. A. Journal of the American Medical Association. 42
Becker.A.. A. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. M. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.
Belli. (2005). and Steer. E.M. New York: Meridian. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. 234-240. (1993).. A. 149-178).
March 12). S.
Ben-Zur. F. Talley.S. Managing the high costs of road deaths. E. and Shimmin.S.bernama. M. Graziano. (2002). and Geller. Psychology and road safety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. S.. (2006. and Haney. H. Retrieved March 30. R.B. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. (1995). 391-399. Stress and Coping.
Bridger. 132(5). (2001).
Bettencourt. Williams. (1994).A. Psychological Bulletin. 43. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.
Boyce. Applied Ergonomics. Introduction to Ergonomics. Malaysian National News Agency. T.J.. 39-55. 38(3). (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.A. Applying Psychology in Organizations.. 95-104. New York: Routledge.D. 45(1). 37-40. B.
Blasco. 751-777.com. (1981). (1984). Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.. 53. (2006).E. R.
Blacker. 34(1). and Bonino. Journal of Personality Assessment. M. F. T.
Binzer. R. 44-51. 37. K. Accident analysis and Prevention. Benjamin. A. (2006). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. 2007 from http://www. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. Anxiety. and Valentine.C.
Bina. A. New York: McGraw Hill. 313-322. D.my/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=185148. J. McKee. J. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.
. Journal of Applied Psychology. (Eds. W. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.K. 318-330.
Brown. 24.. and Noy. Multivariate Behavioral Research. (2000). International Journal of Educational Development. 29-38
Brodsky. and Cudeck.C.E. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. E. and Carbonell Vaya. (1992). I.S. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. W.
Brown. (2005). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Brown. T.D. 9-19). 267-278. G. 21. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 18(2).D. (1997).
. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality.M. 4(4). (2002). (1948). and Huguenin. 24(1). Accident Analysis and Prevention.S.C. R.J. Personality and Individual Differences. M. 641-649. T. 445-455. T.
Briggs. I. (2007). (Eds. and Ghiselli. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 219-241. (1995).W. 14. Ergonomics. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. I. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. Political Geography. In Rothengatter.P. observational data and driver records.W.
Bunnell.G. 37(4). Levine. C. Amsterdam: Elsevier.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. C. 105-124. (2004).. Haliburton.
Brown. R. R. 20-23. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. G. (1982).. In Rothengatter. (1989). Accident Analysis and Prevention.E. Schlundt.D. D. R. 345-352. Goldzweig. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. I. R. 27(3).
Burns. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. 32(1). and Warren. and Wilde.
. R.H. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. G. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Buss. L.L. and Cortes.
. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.D.. & Santos. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.G. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. M. and Tapia. 15981613. F. Martin-Loeches. B. (1999). 65-115).H. (2003). 343-349.
Carmines. 290-299.A. and Durkee. (1998). E. International Journal of Psychology. (2004). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. Hinojosa. T. 736-751. Gonzalez. (Eds. (2004).K. In Fuller. M.
Cackowski. (2000).. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. D. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohn. Journal of Consulting Psychology.
Buss. (1974).. Multiple perspectives. E. (Eds). Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Byrd. (1957). Internal versus external control in India and Canada.
Caird. Human Brain Mapping. and Nasar.L. 21. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. J.J. and McIver.F. E. A..
Byrne. M. In Bohrnstedt.. A. 22. and Kline. J. and Warren.
Carsten. T.. J. 45-50.W. and Borgatta. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. Parada. B. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. J. 47(15). J. (1981). Mercado. Environment and Behaviour. Applications and Programming. Ergonomics. (2001). Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. M. A. 31. 9. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. W. L.A.M. (2002). Applications and Programming.
Byrne. 63-65. J. O.P.W.
109-122.-L.-H. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age.ictct.
Chaloupka-Risser (2005). Taiwan. T.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.P. (1996). S. Retrieved October 15. Personality and Individual Difference.
Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. 41. and Yeh. Matto Grosso do Sul. M. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak.
Chaplin. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Y. In Rothengatter.F.H.0. (2007). Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.M. 467-477. Cheung. (Eds.
Chang. November). 10(2). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Retrieved March 31.
Cheah. Campo Grande..pdf
. R. (2007. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. N6. 2007 from http:www. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Dictionary of Psychology. and Huguenin. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. 2008 from http://www. Sunway Campus. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. and Denis. Amsterdam: Elsevier. November 12).
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007).. March 20-22. and Lim. (1985). W. Brazil.W. P. D. Kuala Lumpur.org/workshops/05CampoGrande
Chan.ghipr. New York: Dell. R. J.D. Malaysia. (2004). Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. H.G. R. J.
Carver. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. (2006). 557-562. Monash University. The Star. What are we allowed to ask. F. 61-71).. T. 21(4).-H. Howard. S. Visser. and Nash. Driving: through the eyes of teens. R. (2000).
Clarke. and Huguenin. In Chmiel. 38(6)..
Chliaoutaks.. G.T. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. and Lee-Gosselin. hopelessness and suicide ideation. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. (1992). N. Panosch. 1283-1289. 679-684. and Darviri. Time vs. and Stiles. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. Bakou. In Rothengatter.. B.
Chipman.. (Ed. Lamsudin. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. MacGregor. Retrieved December 7. R.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. 28(2). (1996). Koumaki.. M.P. (2002). M.G.. H.pdf
Conrad. N. Cancer Nursing.
Christie. 33.M. 22(3). Safety at work. A.. T. V. 974-981.’ Injury Prevention. Bartle. (2000). Personality traits and the development of depression.. )2007). 431-443. N. and Chan. 13(2).C. and Costello.
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006.
. W.. P. French. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. 193-200. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Christ. E. and Bukasa. Cairns. E. 2007 from http://www. P. Towner. Journal of Safety Research. S. 125-129. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes.
Chung. C.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. A.. D. N..K. 377-390). (1999). C.E. Bradshaw.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Helmets. Ward. and Truman. M. J. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. 255-274). (2007). (Eds. C. 24(2). P.makeroadssafe. (2004).. 196-203.L. June). and Ward.. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. Demakakos. T.S. Y. 39. (2005).
Chioqueta. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.D. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Tzamalouka.. Personality and Individual Differences. C. Kasniyah. S. Smiley.D.
M. American Psychologist. Legal and Criminological Psychology.
Costa. 95-104. (1991). 64. 152-171.L.
Davin Arul (2005.
de Waard. (1995). D.R.asp?id-7003.
Davies. p. and Durso.W.
Crittendon. P. In Rothengatter. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. 2007 from http://blog. 20(5). T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2005). R. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. P. and McRae. In Fuller. W. K.M.S. February 8). R. Retrieved April 5. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. and Froggatt. W. 45-62. L. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults.
.thestar. and Huguenin.
Cooke. 21-50. F. and Santos. R. (1962).my/permalink.com.D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. and Patel. and van Koppen.
Cresswell. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. N. 10. G. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.A. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. H. 10. The Star. (2006. 161-175). 263. (1961). D. 98-117. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. N48
de Raedt.J. Accident proneness.T. Journal of Personality Assessment. 5(1).J. (1996).
Cozan. J. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Cowardly Malaysian drivers. R.F. October 18). (2002)..
Crombag.A. P. 16(5). Wagenaar. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. (Eds. Mental workload. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.
R. On the measurement of driver mental workload. Ergonomics.L. The expression of anger and its consequences. T. Oetting. Oetting.
Dharmaratne.. Women’s Studies International Forum.. M. and Meyer. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.S. 41. Lynch. R. R.R. (1997). R.L.
Dewar. R. (Eds.E. (1998). Amsterdam: Pergamon. E. 26(1). J.D. 209-233).
de Waard. R.
Deffenbacher.L. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. (2002a). (1996). Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2000). Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. E. 575-590. (2002b). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. L. J.N. and Ameratunga. Oetting.
Delhomme.T. (2005). E..
Devashayam. 28. 373-393. and Morris. 123132. R.S. E. 34. (1999).L. In Rothengatter. 729-730.. Age differences – drivers old and young. 5-17. 111-142). Filetti.. Richards.
Deffenbacher. R. 14(12). K. E. 50(2). T. J.R. (Eds. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.. Cognitive Therapy and Research.W.
Dien. In Dewar. (Eds. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. (2004). Individual differences.
Dewar.B. P.L.R. (2003). and Oetting.E. and Olson. P. and Salvatore. D. and Swaim. 47.S. and Brookhuis.D. Journal of Counseling Psychology... 333-356. N.L. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.F.A.
. 383-402. T. (2003). C. Lynch. In Dewar. E. J.S. E. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. J. Huff.E. 161-171). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. S.. Lynch. 1-20.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. 27(4).R. and Olson.
Deffenbacher. S.L. Lynch. P. Personality and Individual Differences. and Carbonell Vaya. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Tucson.C.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. T. R. R. Petrilli.
Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. T. E.. (2003). J. Brown. 223-231). (1987). The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA).
.G.. T.. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. A.
Downe. Accident Analysis and Prevention. C..E. 14(2). Amsterdam: Pergamon. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 31. C. In Rothengatter..) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2004. A. Lim.
Dixey. 323-331. M. Sungai Petani. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. (2003).
Dukes. M. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. and Che Doi. 197208.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.L. Asian Institute of Medicine. 278-285). ‘Fatalism’. Malaysia.a.L. (Eds.. Ebersbach.M. 263282.
Draskóczy.A. Science & Technology. negative emotional and risky driving.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 1146-1158. (1999). Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. and Mayser. L. Knowledge transfer.Y.G. Bahar. Ball.
Dobson. December)..S. Nigeria. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. and Ballard.A. M. R. Kedah. 33. L.. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. J.. M. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. C. R.. Dietze. and Carbonell Vaya. T.
Dula.T. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. (Eds. J. (2007. November). and Loke. A. (1999). W. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. 85-92). and McFadden. (1997).R. R.
Dodge. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. S. 53. Women drivers’ behaviour.
Downe.P. and Rodgers.L. and Coie. M.. Powers. H. Health Education Research. (2001). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Mohd Yusuff. S. D. 525-535. In Dorn. K. In Khalid. (Ed. Social Science Journal 38. N.D. Clayton. Miller. Jenkins.E. Lippold. S.
L. 22(4).A. Retrieved December 25. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.
Elvik.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. (2005). A. A. J. (1968). J. Leadership and Organizational Development. (2001). Lalovic.
Engel. Chawky. March 20-22. (Ed. (2002). Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.
Dumais. G. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.. New York: Academic. 201-22. Brno.
. C. 293-300.R. 771-782. Boyer.
Edwards. In Underwood.. 74.L. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. H. G.. West. Lesage. (2005). (1996). C. 159165. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dyal.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 50(13). R. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007 from www. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. Ménard-Buteau.. Annals of Internal Medicine.. 209-306). Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. (1984).
Elander. (1971).. 17-26). and Turecki. Kim. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.pdf
Engel. and French D. (1993).. G. Journal of Transport Geography. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Czech Republic..B. (1962). Causal ordering of stress. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. A. 113. A.
Dunbar. 69. R. G. satisfaction and commitment. Psychological Bulletin.D.ictct.
Elangovan. 279-294. A.
Ellis. R. 4(3). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. In Lefcourt.(Ed.M. 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. N. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. J. 838-844.
B. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Farik Zolkepli (2007. Herth. E. (1995). Barnard. p. 16. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 784-786. Hadley. American Journal of Public Health. Traffic Safety and the Driver. L. Risk Analysis. L. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.G. L. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 23(5). 55). Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6.
Farmer. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. (1929).M. (1984).000 and RM5. and Alpert.. C. E.M. S. L. E. 38). J..
Ferguson. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. K..
. Patterson. London: Medical Research Council.
Farran. and Popovich.A.M. The Star. G. London: Medical Research Council.. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 19-36.
Farmer. and Chambers. N22.A. 6(1). E. (1926). (1939). Accident Analysis and Prevention. E.G. 84). (1991).G. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.
Ey. and Chambers.J. New York: McGraw Hill. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. December 10).
Evans. (2000). Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.. W. London: Medical Research Council. Klesges. 81-94.6bil losses yearly. 86(6). M.S.
Evans. L. 421-435. (1976). E. S.
Evans. (1986). and Chambers.
Type A Behavior and Your Heart.
Fuller. (1974). 461-472. S. 412-426.
. Attitude. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. I.. H. (1990).
Forward. M. 12(4). and Bragg. R. (2005). R. 289-298. (2007). (2006). R. I. San Francisco. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Intention and Behavior. 207-213.P. consequences and considerations. R. P.
Frazier. and McCartt. Journal of Counseling Psychology.A. S. 63-77. causes. R.T. 115-134. and Barron. 9.R. Teoh.A. Human factors and driving. Women and traffic accidents.
Finn. J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A. (1975). K. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Cross Cultural Management. Malays and Indians compared.
Firestone. P. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers.
Fuller. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.E. and Rosenman. Journal of Safety Research 38.18(4). 37. 51(1). (1998. 47-55. (2002). Accident analysis and Prevention. S. (2004). R.
Forward. (1986). B. E. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. S.
Fontaine. 66. M. 38(5).
Ferguson.H. 77-97). Recherche Transports Sécurité..W. R. (2000). S. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. and Richardson. and Järmark. Belief. In Fuller. and Santos. R. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. and Ajzen.
Fuller.. Journal of American College Health. Tix.
Friedman. New York: Knopf. and Seiden.
Fishbein. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.A.W. (2005).. August). A. 137-145. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Linderholm.
Ghiselli. A. N.
Gomez. N.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 93-96). Y. (1949). J.. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. A. and Carbonell Vaya. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.W. 487-491. G. 1233-1248. and Brown. (1997). Behavior Paterns.C. 540-546.
Gidron. In Rothengatter. (1977). (2006). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application.
. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. Petaling Jaya. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Hillsdale.T. Aggressive Driver. 109-128. rights and redistribution in Malaysia..
Glass. Stress and Coronary Disease. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. European Journal of Public Health..
Grayson. C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 167-202). Journal of Behavioural Medicine. A. 109-116. McHugh. S. Nandy. Mutu. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components.B. L. (Eds. and Mahbob.A. 42(9). Gal. 58(1).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.
Fuller.S. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. 13-21.B. Y.T. (2006). and Gomez. E.
Ghazali.. R.S. K. 19. E. D. (2008). 6. 203-220. E.E. 16(5). Journal of Food Products Marketing. R.. Ergonomics. (2003). MY: Sage. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Galovski. (1999). and Davidson. (1999). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée..
Garg. E. D. T. H. and Hyder. 33(6). (1996). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. and Blanchard. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. (2006). Malta. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. E. 12(4). R. E. and Syna Desevilya.E. and Pender. T. (Eds.D.A. C.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
LeShan. 2nd Edition. (2001). Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. 659-662.B. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). (1975).C.
Levenson.M. 479-490. (2002).K. 97. C.M. 38.M.G. K. 303-304.J. and Nutter. G. Billittier. Journal of Social Psychology. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. New York: Academic.. N.M.
Levenson. H. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. D. 177-196. (1974). (1973). Jehle. (1983). A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 3. Journal of Personality Assessment. 253-269). D. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. (2002). A. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control..V. Mahwah. H. 41. H. and Morgan. Malay dominance and opposition politics. pp. Moscati. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. (2005). R. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. H.M. G. British journal of Psychology. A.P. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.
Levenson. New York: E. Conner. and Stiller.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.
. W. 37. Barrett. 377-383.L. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. H.
Leech. 397-401.. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Lerner. (1989). (1976). IV. Janssen.
Lefcourt. H. Applied Ergonomics. Cancer as a turning point. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. L. (Ed. R. H. 93. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Dutton.A. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.
Lenior.. In Lefcourt.
Neighbors.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. S.
Lonczak. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. New York: Academic.. R. Retrieved April 5. H. (1980). Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 8-9
Liverant. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. (2004). (1999. Retrieved May 14. (1960). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. 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.
Looi.S.P. (1981). Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. 213-222. 11. 2007 from http://thestar. 10.A. H.
Levy. 36. L-L. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health..
Lindsey. In Rothe. Hwang. (Ed.
Lin. March 26). Differentiating among internality.com.limkitsiang. and Yen. 7.
. H-F. H.. (1997). 536-545. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. The Star Online. K.M. D. L. H-D.
Levenson. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. F. Wu.P. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.my/news/story. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. Accident Analysis and Prevention. February 2). D.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. (1979). Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.htm. (2007).
Loo. powerful others and chance..M. A. and Scodel. and Donovan. J. 39(3). Huang. (Ed. 2007 from http://www. E. (2007.S. C. In Lefcourt. Psychological Reports.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 59-67. 125-127. W.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. M-R.
L. 391-411.M. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Maakip. J. R. 62-67. C. age. M. A.A. D.W. Australia.R. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. M. H. S.. D.A. (2000). W. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Quality & Quantity. and level of education.. 27(1). R.F. Campbell. (2003). Journal of Personality. (1988). 68(5).
Marsh.K. 18(4). (1994. and Williams.
Massie. J. 31.L.F. R. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. (Ed. C. Monash University Accident Research Centre.W.28. May). and Hershberger. Vissers. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Lourens. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1999).. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.R.. Balla. Annual mileage. (1995). Accident Analysis and Prevention. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.L.L. G. and Wan. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Report No. J. A. (1998). In Dorn.M. 185-217. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. 103. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. and Mooran..
Macdonald. Victoria NSW. G.
Maruyama. and McDonald. Journal of Rehabilitation. and Jessurun. 55(2). (1994). A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Watson. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 233-252).A.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. K. Malaysia. J. P.L. (1986). 299313. 593-597. behavior and cognition. (1997).
Martin. I. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. of affect.
Luckner.P. 73-87.M. 129.
Marsh. and Balla. (1989). 869-897.
Marcoulides. Psychological Bulletin. H.
29.. Personality in Adulthood. 173-181. Beresford. D. Gilbody. (1989). 71-77. Sambasivan. 649-663.
McKenna. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. and Burkes. A.
McKenna. (2005. (1977). S. New York: Plenum. and Brown. 37(6). Understanding Human Behavior. F.malaysia-today.V. Perspectives Psychiatriques. I.
McMillan. Rinehar and Winston.R. 23.
Meichenbaum. [ in press].W. Duncan. D. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. L. G.htm
McConnell. M. (1998).net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Malaysia Today.E. G. 34(47). 769-778. J. (1974). (1986). Journal of Managerial Psychology. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven.P. F. R. Retrieved April 5.
Md-Sidin. November 6).
Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.
Mercer. 9. (2007). Waylen. 45-52. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.
McRae. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. E. Psychological Medicine. (1989).P. and Costa.E. The University of Reading.P.. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. S. and Neilly... (1983). (1990).D. New York: Guilford. M.. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Unconscious suicides. P.
Mendel. I. Ergonomics. Risk Analysis. (2009).
. J.. 2007 from http://www. F. Ismail. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Hampshire UK.
Time intervals between accidents. and Johnson. Safety Science. (1949).
Mintz.panducermat. and Shapiro.A.
Mikkonen. (1989). 44(2).pdf
Moller.L. (2006).L. A. C. Bulmas. 195-211. G. M. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. 2007. H.org/pdf/agdr3study. Journal of Applied Psychology. M. and Blum. E. J.
Mintz. and Schwing.
Monárrez-Espino. (1997). Kayumov. Finland. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. (154). 6(2). 2006 from http://www. Aggressive driving. In Helkama. (2006).
Mizel. J. V. and Niemi.my/en/street_smart_statistik. from http://www. Turku. Statistics. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 61(3).) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. (1985). (2003).. 335-342. Retrieved December 15. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. J. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. 38(6). and Laflamme. 147-161. New York: Plenum. 33(3). l.php. L.aaafoundation.A. (Eds.E. A. Retrieved May 23. 75-85.
Michon.. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.J. L.
Miles. May). 341-353. Nhan. In Aggressive driving: three studies. Washington DC.L. P.
Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).
. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Michon. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. 401406. Accident Analysis and Prevention. microsleep episodes. K. and Keskinen.M.. D. Hasselberg. R. (1983..org. L. what should we do? In Evans. 21(4). E. (Eds.C. Simulator performance. J.
8.B.L. (1974). and Comrey. K. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. and Maniam. (2007). R. W. 38(1). Accident proneness and road accidents. R. H. R. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. R. 42.L. (Eds.S. 137-144. Transcultural Psychiatry. 125-132. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). Nandy.. 51-63. I. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making.. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Näätänen. Religioin 37. Fifth Edition.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. J. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.
Morris. D. and Astur. Petaling Jaya. 6. and Summala. A. Visual Cognition.
Mousser. S. 164-174. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. (1999). 167-202). 32-37.
Nandy. Amsterdam: North Holland. (2003). 243-261. 339-343. A. 320-388). T. and Krasner. L. and Gomez. (1976).
Neuman. P. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. A. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Journal of Affective Disorders. A. Boston: Pearson. In O’Donoghue . Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. A.
Most.T. W.. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. 15(2). (1956).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.
Moore. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. (1994). MY: Sage. E. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. and Summala H.
1016-1024. 92-93. R. UK: Ashgate.
O’Connell. 171. 201-215). (2007. In Baenninger. M. December 9). Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. A. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Ogden. Zwi (1997). [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. 654-656.A.38. 445-460. (Ed. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. [Letter to the Editor] The Star.B. Spanish Journal of Psychology.L. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. B. Aggression on roadways. Ergonomics. British Journal of Psychiatry.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. M. and Olson. (2001). (1997). 34. Temes. I. A. A. 43-76). In Fuller. In Dewar. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. Driver suicides.
O’Neill. (1996. (1996).R. says operator. February 8).
Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. p.W. Garner.
Ohberg. P. R. 253-326). (Eds. Driver perception-response time. 237-252. Tucson. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Tropical Medicine and International Health. (1997). Oxford UK: North Holland. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. E.F (2001). R.
. N51. (2002). 40(10).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. Human factors in modern traffic systems. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering.. 468-472.
Noy. 4(2). and Williams. Injury Prevention. W. Aldershot.W.W.S.
Olson.. (2000).L (2002). P. F. R.
N-S highway still one of the safest roads. P. p. 4. and Z. and Lonnqvist. R. K. J. Pentilla. Straits Times. J. (1998). and Hermida. and Santos.
J. (pp. 40. Ergonomics.
. and Lajunen (2005). 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. J. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 34.G. driving violations and accident involvement. N. T. Lajunen. D. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. Hebl. Anger on and off the road. Tassinary. 125-134). Helsinki. and Schneider.S. A.S. M.G. L. 533-545. (1998). (Eds. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). R. T. W. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 1036-1048. 92.. 456-461.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. H. Driving errors. D. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Personality and Individual Difference..
Parker. Lajunen. C. D. R. Finland. C.A.ictct. 38(5). Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. R. (2005). O.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. (1974). Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. 479-486. Manstead. 2007 from www. 507-526. B...
Parker. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 42.R and Stradling.E.pdf -
Parker. and Saleh. 38(3).T. J. 113-140.
Özkan. and Kaistinen. Ulrich.M. and Grossman-Alexander. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 3-13.
Parsons. and Huguenin. (2008).
Parsons. T.D. Reason. (1988). (2001). S.R.
Papacostas. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.
Özkan. 37(1).S. T. Journal of Environmental Psychology..W.. Retrieved December 20. and Synodinos. 18. Traffic locus of control. (1995). (2002). (2004). British Journal of Psychology.
Bioulac. and Renner.A.. Hyder. A. Automotive Vehicle Safety. D.R.
Philip. Morristown NJ: General Learning. (1971).ictct. 875-878.A. 12(3). Perceptual and Motor Skills. M. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research.
Peden. Locus of Control in Personality. E. and Hyder. World report on road traffic injury prevention. and Mathers (Eds. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 68-79. Simple reaction time. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. Jarawan... 35. and Baldwin. Quera-Salva.M. Sleet. (2003). A. British Medical Journal. (2002). Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors.
Pestonjee. J. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. 91.
Per. B. and Åkerstedt. Taillard.. Campo Grande.J.and Schuman.. Matto Grosso do Sul. B. U. (1976). Perceptual and Motor Skills. Brazil. R. 63. Scurfield. 201-204. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. E. (1986). and Al Haji. M.. 324. Journal of Sleep Research. W. (2000). P.
Phares. 3. D.B. London: Taylor & Francis.C.A. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Perry. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers.R. D. 1153. 9-14
. A. D.
Peden. (2005). March 20-22. (1980). (2002). Retrieved March 31. Superstition. M. S. G. 8(1).
Peters.H. 147-154. and Singh.
Perry. L. (1999).. 619-623.) (2004). Switzerland: World Health Organization. 2007 from http:www. D. Mohan. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. T.
Peltzer. Geneva. A. G. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. and Peters. K.J.s
284-288. 49(4).. (1994). and Campbell. S. A. C. and Harris.D.
Proctor.S. J. (1965). Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. and Corlett. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics.H. T. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.E.-G. (1976). Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone.I. 317-333.. Manstead.J. Journal of Clinical Psychology.. 673-678. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 32(3). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. F. (2007).N. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. (1991). and Lussier. (1990). 29(1). and Anderle.
Porter. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Ergonomics.J. 16(3). K. 733-750.
Reason. Traffic Engineering and Control. 369-374
Radin Umar. 334-343. Stradling. 26. L. and Pant. 32. J. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. (1990). S.
Reeder.J. 566-573. Cambridge University Press.
Preston. 20(4). Journal of Applied Psychology. Hopelessness. 3112). S. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. S. New York: McGraw Hill. Human Error. D. internal-external locus of control and depression.
Ranney. Accident Analysis and Prevention. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. (1996).J. 32(2). R. Baxter.
Reason.. (2000). 78-80. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1989). (2005). Disaster Prevention and Management.. P. 1315-1332. 299-300. S. and Langley. Rider training.S. S. T. R. C. Chalmers. W. Breen. J. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.A.
Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. T.
Robbins.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Organizational Behavior.D.
Rice.64.P. M. April). 453-460. Weinstein.G. 2007 from http://202.
Risser. Ergonomics. and Huguenin. (2003)..R. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.efpa. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Singapore: Elsevier. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. P.. Tippetts. (2003.
Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Report to the General Assembly. (2002). and Solomon.html
Robbins. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Retrieved December 11. Tippetts.S. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. R. 45(8). and Voas. cities. (2000). 37(3). Journal of Safety Research. (2004). European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. and Nickel. 569-582. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. E. In Lim. (Eds. (2005).G.
Romano. P-A. H.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003.A.
. Stress and Health. K. (1999). Journal of Safety Research. S. S. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.
Retting. and Voas. 485-489.Y. 2007 from http://www. S. R. 37(1). R. In Rothengatter. P. 34(15). S. R.B.190. and Downe. A.
Richardson. Retrieved May 23. Accident Analysis & Prevention. W-R. (2000). E.L.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. Anger. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. (Ed). 1-7. R. (2007) Statistik2006.
84-115. T. 595-600). Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. American Psychologist. G. (1998).
Rowley.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. (2007). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Rothengatter. In Barjonet.B. M. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. (2005). (Ed.B. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Rotter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Bhopal. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. (2005). 3-12). In Rothe.
Rosenbloom. 43(3). J. (1966). T. (2002).
Rothengatter. 308-331. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 428-435
Rothe. G. T. Boston: Kluwer. (2002). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. (2001) Objectives. J.B. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. topics and methods. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia.
Rotter. 43(1). P-E. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Rothengatter. (2006). and Shahar. 45. and Bhopal.
Rowley. 80. C. 5.B. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. J. (pp. Capital & Class.(Ed. (Ed. J. (Ed. (1990). A. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. 10.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. 214-220). 88. Traffic safety: content over packaging. 249-258. 56-67. 489-493.
. Psychological Monographs. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.P. M. In Underwood.P.
Rothengatter. T. J. (1975). T. C. whole issue.
Rude drivers lack emotional control. Correlations between traffic. Bukit Aman.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Bukit Aman.
Sadiq. 37(2). (2005. September 26). Retrieved May 22. (2006. (1999). Kuala Lumpur.). (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Thrills. Bukit Aman. (2002). Road Safety – Back to the Future. 2007 from http://www. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. R. M. 29(1). Kuala Lumpur. IBU Pejabat Polis. B. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Heiskanen. IBU Pejabat Polis. J.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Malaysiatoday (Reuters).
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003).gov. The Star.
Salminen. (2005). Retrieved December 11. 23-42). Accident Analysis and Prevention.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. p. S.
Saad.my. S.rmp. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Kuala Lumpur. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 2003 from http://www. September 29). occupational. J. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. In Fuller. IBU Pejabat Polis. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.
Salminen. Bukit Aman.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001).A2. Kuala Lumpur.
Sabey. 373-376.A. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 33-36.htm
. sports and home accidents. IBU Pejabat Polis. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.malaysia-today. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. and Santos (Eds.
Personal correspondence.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. V. 38. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1966).C. (2006). (2003). Traffic Engineering + Control. 801-810. Regional Development Series.
Schlag. C. Applied Economics.. and Schade.. 179-188. In Honjo. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Jr.. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.L. 673-687. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 484-491. (2008. Asian Survey. and Panter. (Ed. K. 35. and Rizzo. (1981). v.
Scuffham. November 15). (2000). Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. and Panter. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Sansone. J. 293302
Sendut. 6(9).A. Fosser. and Bourne. and the social psychological road in between. H. Jr.T. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. 117-147)..
Schneider.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand.
.E. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.E.
Sagberg. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules.F.I. and Bourne.. Healy. Ericsson. C. P. 29(3). Ball. 314-318.. M. 6. In Healy.A.T.F. A.K. and Sætermo. D.A. K. C. Morf. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. M. (1995).
Scuffham. F. L.C. (1997). The research process: of big pictures. M. I. A. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. (Eds. P. Nagoya: Japan. 34. 3-16). J. Severson. conscientiousness. little
details.). Morf. B. L.
Sambasivan. and Young.
Schwebel.. and Langley (2002). A.F. (2004). Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. 41. C. and sensation seeking. K.
 Sansone. A. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. M.
Shapiro. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.
Siegel.M and Kacmar. A. (2004). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.T. G. (1988).E. Hult. P. (1998).
Shinar. 46(15)..J. E. H. Hartwick. (2000).
Sheppard. 180-205). L. (1962). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Strategic Management Journal. B. M. M. 325-343. J. 66. American Journal of Psychiatry. 25. (Ed. K.
Sekaran. Journal of Counseling and Development. 51(1).. (2007).
Sharkin. Automobile accidents. and Zakowska.
Selzer. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. R.E. 1.M. D.P.. (1956). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. In Barjonet. B. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. (2003). Fourth Edition. D. New York: McGraw Hill. Summala.
Shinar..R. 361-365. 3-7. C. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 119(3). S. 1549-1565. 237-240. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. 137-160.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.. D. J.
. and Payne. S.L. Journal of Consumer Research. C. 15(3).
Sharma. P-E. Ketchen. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Boston: Kluwer.L. Ergonomics.S. 397-404. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. and Roskova. and Warshaw. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). suicide and unconscious motivation. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. and Kanekar. U. (2003). (2001). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
H. (1977). 2007 from http://findarticles.
.K. (2001..A.A. expression and control of anger.
Sinha.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. Product design with people in mind. Boca Raton. 47(8). Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. and Frank. (1995).. R. Houston..
Stanton. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. Crowson. 14(4). Matthews.. Retrieved December 25. B. M. N. B.K.
Spielberger.C. 49-68). 237-258. 44. Kurylo. Oxford UK. London: Arnold. American Psychologist.A. B. J. In Kassinove. (Ed. Ergonomics. International Journal of Stress Management. Editorial. Reheiser. 386-397. FL: Taylor & Francis. C. N. (1992).C. S. and Coombs.). Stress..D. Auto safety and human adaptation.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1
Slovic. (Ed. (1998).sirc. 477-492.
Social Issues Research Centre (2004. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. (2007). 1151-1158. C. 50(8). A.J.R. 1-18). 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. Journal of Risk and Insurance. and Sydeman.
Slinn. and Guest. D. 21(4). 2007 from http://www. Measuring the experience.. Cognitive Therapy and Research. Fishchoff. 1029-1030. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. M. P.D. Lichtenstein.org/publik/driving. and Watson. Jr. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.pdf
Stanton. P. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. C. and Poirier. (2004). (2007).J.. Retrieved December 1. In Stanton. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. B. B. August). (1997).G. P. N.
Smiley.. S. Corrigan. E. Issues in Science and Technology.
and Pinto. Stokols. and Havland. 139(6). (1993). J. In Stough. (2001). Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. J. UK: Edward Elgar.
Stewart. 2(4). (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. D. N. Ergonomics. N. (1988). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Sümer. Novaco. D. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. R. M. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. M. and Ryan.
 Storey. 467-480. 681-688. M. T. Type A Behavior.
Stein. P. 529-544. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.
Stevenson. Morrison. (1996).
Steiner.. E.. In Lewis. and Liwag. and Erol. 279-300). 247-254. New York: Guilford. (1978). Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. 43(9). 63.E. R.
Subramaniam. Sümer. N.
Sümer.. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.E.M.A.. (Ed.R. T. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. 37(4).. Bilgic.R. 44(3).) Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Stokols. (2003). R.
 Stough. Palamara. Trabasso.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N. N. 949-964. G. 35. and Campbell.C. and Jin. Traffic congestion. H. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. The Methodology of Theory Building. (2001).
.. Cheltenham. (2005).. 1359-1370. and stress. A. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Journal of Psychology. N. J. R. Maggio.W. (2005). (2000).. (Eds. D.L. R. Traffic Injury Prevention. M.
193-199. Berument. 21. and Merisalo. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.. vehicles. T. 41-52). T. G. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. H.
Sümer. Nieminen. 703-711. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.K.
Summala.. (1997). H. N. (2005). In Rothengatter. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications.
Swaddiwudhipong. Human Factors. and Punto. and Näätänen. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Özkan. A.. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. Accident risk and driver behaviour. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. H. R. S. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. H. and de Bruin. 383-394). (1994). (1996). 82-92). 103-117. R. (Ed. (1986). 38(3). 31. H. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. S. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Summala.. N. 22(1-3). (2006).. Amsterdam: Elsevier. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. (Report 11). P. Personal resources.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. 331-342. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. (Eds. T. and Gunes. (1988). H.
Summala. 38. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. H. A. P. T. T. 491-506. and Carbonell Vaya E. (2005). (1980).
Summala. (1996). M. H. Safety Science.
Summala. Mahasakpan.. and Tantriratna.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. In In Rothengatter.. 18(4). G.N. Koonchote. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. pedestrians and road environments involved in
. (1988). Karanci.
Sümer. In Underwood. 442-451. Helsinki. Journal of Traumatic Stress.
Summala. W. and Lajunen. Ergonomics.
Sakamoto. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. D.
 Tanaka. (1989). (1985).) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. 42. 167-172. Ono. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. G. B.233-239. (Ed.G. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. (eds. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. (2001). P-E. 52(6).R. Y..
Tavris. N. 25(1). A. C. New York: Simon & Schuster.J. 581-590. E. 353-369. (1985).. Ono.C. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. and Theodorson. L. 33(2). T. 18(4). International Review of Applied Psychology.. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.M.. (2000). 138(5). (1996). Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. and Papacostas. Sakamoto.
Tavris. J.S. (1998).road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Y. E. Fujihara. The effects of road design on driving.
Synodinos. G. E.. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation. P. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. J. (2001). Kuhn.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.A. and Huba.
. S. 37-44. Neural Networks. S. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 609-615.
Taylor. and Kitamura. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health.
Tanaka. (1969). Journal of Clinical Psychology.. Boston: Kluwer. J. T. Journal of Social Psychology.S. 34. and Layde. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics.R. and Fragopanagos (2005).E. 241-257. and Yarnold. P. S. 241-263).
Theeuwes. In Barjonet. G. In Grimm. S. and Kitamura. The interaction of attention and emotion.
Thompson. Fujihara. C. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.
W. 123-130. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 321-333. 7.T. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. 10(3). D. A. (1985). Wright and Crundall. 207-332. (2004). H. American Journal of Psychiatry. and McClure. J. (1993). 147-152.
Tversky. London: Academic.. 23(1).M. (1997). Cognitive Psychology. R. Personality and Individual Differences. (1999). and Everatt. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. 445-448. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.
Underwood. Anger while driving. 11-22. Journal of Counseling Psychology.
Underwood. Volume 3: Attention. P. Judgment under uncertainty. 279-297.A and Hobbs. A. and Kahneman. and Sanders. O. Personality subtypes of young drivers. 1124-1130. (1996). 5. (1949). 106(5). (1973).. D. 4(4).
Underwood. B. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. D.E. C. 32(3). G. and response to a traffic safety campaign. In Neumann.
Tiliman. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. 385-424. J.
Thurman. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. 185..F. Personality predictors of driving accidents. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Trick.W. J. (2001).. 55-68. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Mills. (1974). A. and Milton. and Vavrik.) Handbook of Perception and Action.
Turner. L. Applied Cognitive Psychology. P. and Kahneman. accident involvement. G. Chapman. Science. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (Eds. Enns. J. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. G. G.
Ulleberg. (2003). 2.
Trimpop. R. and Kirkcaldy. C. The accident prone automobile driver.
Vassallo. 43(2).. and McIntyre. Matto Grosso do Sul.” Recovery.A.F. W. 913-921. A. J. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. (2007).D. Bergerson. 26. S. G.B. Retrieved December 5. Italy. Caserta.
Vaa.J.D. (2004). (1999). 9(2). In Underwood. R. Personality and Individual Differences.. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. E. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Accident Analysis and Prevention. “Accident prone. R. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. (2000).M. W. Campo Grande. In Rothengatter.
Vavrik. Harris. T. (Ed.. 42. M. J.
Velting.. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Harrison.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. J. Retrieved September 1. A. Sanson.A. A. D. S. 2007 from http:www. 181-190).F.ictct. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2005). Meijman.pdf
Vallières. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Smart. 39.
Utzelmann. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. 2007 from www.
. (2005). Cockfield. T. (1998). The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. and Vallerand.. H. 336-345..
Vasconcellos. (Eds. T. (2001). Ergonomics. Brazil.ictct. On-line driver workload estimation. (1999). 210-222. Ergonomics. March 20-22. 24-29. and Rothengatter.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. and Huguenin. 444-458.. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Van der Hulst.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. É.
Waller.. and Little. Backwoods Home Magazine. L. and Zaidel.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Transportation and society. and Young. A. T. M. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.P. (1998). (2001).E.R. P.T. 117128. 5(4).F. D. 2008 from http://www.
Wállen Warner. 9. (2009. B.M.. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.theaa. 28. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences. N.
Waterman. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.. G. (2001). H. (1997). Retrieved December 15. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. T. 438-447. J.A. Wellington. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. M. Stanton.com/articles/waterman37.
.F. (2000). 1-8). The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). January 21).
Watson. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Retrieved November 2.J. P.B. W.
Verwey. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. 2007 from http://www. New Zealand. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. 33. and McKenna. and Mallinckrodt (2003). 50(4). 427-433.H. and Carbonell Vaya E. Shope. Heppner. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 123-142. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. 421-444. In Rothengatter.
Waylen. Raghunathan. Elliot. A..com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. and Åberg.backwoodshome. F.P. P. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.
An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. R. 324. Target Risk. 15(11/12).
Wilde.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. Ceminsky.
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.
Wilde.S..J. Ergonomics. G. 31. and Anderson. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Hallberg.
Weissman. and Klerman. (Ed.
West.. Preventions of accidents in childhood. Toronto: PDE Publications. (1973). S.M (1956). G. S.S. K.
Wilde. J. and French.. 441-468. G. G. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.). P. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Guiling. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. Elander. Dunaway. Wiliams. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
. 1149-1152. 195. Mild social deviance. 34..S. (1988). British Journal of Psychology. Risk Analysis. Snow. (2007). G. 8. (1961). 209-225. M. Accident Prevention. 84. E. (pp.M. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. (2005). In Halsey. Advances in Paediatrics. 271278.W.J.
Wells-Parker. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention.L. G.. G. (1994). 450-455.
Wilde. (2002)..J. R. 130(4). American Journal of Psychiatry. 2.J.
Wilde. G. (1982). In Yager. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. B. J. 135-154). University of Waterloo Press. Fox. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions.N.
 Wheatley. (1993). (1984).J. (ed. G. G.. M.S.
Wheatley. 1116-1121.S. 207-219. (2002). M.S.J.
Wells. Childhood accidents.
8. J. M. S. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Responsibility of drivers. L. by age and gender. J. March 20-22. Retrieved March 31. (1994). (1999). (2003). (2004).
Wilson. 34(5). Psychological Assessment. Boyd.F. Welsh.B. Matto Grosso do Sul.R.
Williams.Workshop. Lenard. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. In Hanson. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Boston: Pearson..
. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. M. Applied Ergonomics.F. A.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Willford.. N.I. New York: Taylor & Francis. 31. M. Countries and Their Cultures.. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.
Woodcock. (2008). V.C. Campo Grande. Journal of Safety Research. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.
Williams. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. 26(6). T. (Ed..G. 557-567.J. Brazil.
Williams.) Contemporary Ergonomics. 1. S. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. 99-109.. 55(175). J. and Shabanova. 398-403. E. Cascardi. 303346.ictct. A. and Well.S. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Flyte and Garner.
Wood. J. 6(2). A. 2007 from http:www. International Social Science Journal. Wood. 110-131. (2003). Gavin. (2003).. N. (1996). Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.Y. (2001). T.K. T.G.E. D. Mastering the World of Psychology. 527-531. (2000).A. and Hartman. and Boyd.
Williamson. Space and Culture. and Poythress. 807-811.
Zhang. (1999). X. . 487-503). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research.
World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Head tilt during driving. Geneva. D. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles.C.
World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Technical Report Series No. 740-746. M. Ergonomics. D. 33(3). Asian Journal of Social Science.
. Islam. 50(1). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. and Harris. Regional Office for the Western Pacific.A. 46-58. L. (2000). 42(5). Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society.
Zikovitz. Report of an Advisory Group. Ergonomics. Country reports. S. N. (2007). (Ed. In Underwood. and Chaffin. and Stanton. G. 43(9). 473-485. theatre and tourism. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Young. 1314-1330. (2005).R. Ergonomics. (2005).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
to the individual” (Brown &
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. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. the brake line pressure is relates. differential accident involvement). on most surface types.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. Immediately after releasing the pressure. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926.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
Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. ABS ensures that. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. or benefits. allowing the wheel to turn. (see also. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. As a result. presumably because of personality factors. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again.
25). McKenna of the University of Reading. Also referred to as risk compensation. it refers to a combination of circumstances. including driver behaviour. rather than a theory. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. characteristics of road users. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. 2004. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. time of week and. (see also. risk homeostasis theory. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. In the present research. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type.Noy. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. road and traffic conditions. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. The central idea is that. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. (see also. proximal variable. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. p.
. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. distal variable. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis.
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. task capability theory) . (see also. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. where possible. black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. accident proneness)
Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. (see also.
S. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. 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.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. Department of Transportation. accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk. self-concept. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. ability.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. (see also.
.. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. interests. selfefficacy and self-esteem.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). (see also. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). not as a unidimensional. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. William Haddon Jr. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC). Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. In traffic psychology. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. motivation. 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. values. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco.
Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. intelligence. in-crash. aptitudes.
Wilde. including life goals” (Chaplin. p. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. and buses. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. bicycling. trucks (lorries). or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. conversely. 1985. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle.
Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy.
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. 333-334). Included in this term are walking. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. 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”.
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. if perceived risk falls below the target risk.S. the individual differences approach. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. mobile construction equipment or platforms. motor vehicles included automobiles.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. For the purposes of the present research. motorcycles.
Private speech: see self-talk.
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.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. For the purposes of the present research. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. most usually on roads. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. motorised bicycles. That is. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. the ego and the superego.
Road safety engineering: “a process. zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. behavioural adaptation. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. parking spaces. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. 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. 1996. signage.
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. but only
. overpasses. tunnels.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice.” (Ogden. at both conscious and unconscious levels. stopping places. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. Within the context of this research. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. bridges. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. p. draining system. archways and footpaths. including the network.
Road user: a person using any part of the road system as a non-motorised transport user or as a user of a motor vehicle. self talk 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. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. target risk. 35). (see also.
(see also. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. behaviour control) (see also.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (see also. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. remains constant at the target level. (see also. 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. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. 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. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. According to Wilde (1994).
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. theory of reasoned action. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. According to RHT proponents. which are the best predictors of behaviour.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. On dry roads. theory of planned behavriour)
In the present research.Traffic management: planning.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. coordinating. (see also.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. that share the same road infrastructure. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. from its outset. management science and economics. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. motorised and non-motorised. community planning. time. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. behavioural adaptation. risk homeostasis theory)
. ergonomics. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. comfort. road engineering. convenience and economy.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales
edu/~csp/csp. Hawaii 96822 USA
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. C.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.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. CA 90025 USA
http://portal. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.eng.html
.S. Buss & Warren. San Antonio.wpspublish. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Beck & Steer. 19500 Bulverde Road. Papacostas & Synodinos. TX 78259 USA
http://pearsonassess. 2000). 1993). Brace & Company). 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.com/cgibin/MsmGo.
Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Crowson.psych. C. Kansas 66045 USA
www. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.R. Houston. Snyder.ukans. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.edu/hope.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF)
__________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. _________.g. We are not asking for your name. 1. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.. please answer the following questions: 2. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. _________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.what manufacturer & model (e. 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
. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
If yes. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.CONFIDENTIAL
Personal Information Form
Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.g.. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.
in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. some of the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. 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. 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:__________________________________________ )
. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10.8. most of the time ___ no
11. When you want to use a car.
What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female
17. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months. Within the last twelve months.12. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
. 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.