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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
302 and 252. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash
outcomes was also investigated. some personality constructs. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. where.
. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. demographic (age. 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. personality traits. respectively). driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. freeway urgency. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). and that driver behaviours. on average. 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). However. and destination-activity orientation.ABSTRACT
Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. seven fatalities are recorded each day. externally-focused frustration. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. hopelessness. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301.
as well. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. As hypothesised. 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.
. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. Results indicated that. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression 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. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. As reported in previous studies. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. BIT.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.
The role of the proximal variable. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model.
6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.3.4 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 188.8.131.52.2
2.1 1.3 1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 184.108.40.206.3
.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2 220.127.116.11.3.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 An Applied Perspective 2.3.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)
2.3.5 18.104.22.168 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2. Theories and Models 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2.1 Concepts.3.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Accident Proneness 2.
1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Process Models 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.4.2 Hopelessness 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 Demographic Variables 2.1 188.8.131.52 Driver Characteristics 2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.184.108.40.206.5.1 Age 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1 Experience 220.127.116.11.6
2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2.3 Psychological Variables 2.3.3 Ethnicity 18.104.22.168.5.2 Gender 22.214.171.124 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.5 Aggression
78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85
.126.96.36.199.4 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.1 Locus of Control 184.108.40.206 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 220.127.116.11 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable
34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75
CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.5. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.1 Statistical Models 18.104.22.168.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 22.214.171.124
2.3.2 Zero Risk Theory 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.3.1.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.4
7.4 Study 2 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 184.108.40.206 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 220.127.116.11.7.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.5
3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 18.104.22.168 Study 1C 3.5.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 22.214.171.124 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.6
126.96.36.199 Chi-Square (χ2).7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7
188.8.131.52 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 184.108.40.206 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.5.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 220.127.116.11 3.7.2 Study 1B 3.1 The Sample 3.3.3
3.2.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 18.104.22.168 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 22.214.171.124 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 126.96.36.199.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 188.8.131.52.6.9 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
.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.2.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 184.108.40.206.7.1 Study 1A 220.127.116.11.7.2.8 Crash Occurrence 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.6.2 Research Instruments 3.
1.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 18.104.22.168.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 22.214.171.124
126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 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
.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 184.108.40.206 4.2 Results of Study 2 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Description of the Sample 4.12.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 22.214.171.124 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.5
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 188.8.131.52 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.1 Age.1.3.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.6.3 Validity Test Results 4.
184.108.40.206 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 220.127.116.11. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.6
.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 Goodness of Fit 18.104.22.168 Study 2 4.9
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.1 Study 1C 4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 5.8.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.7
4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.5
5.9.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199.5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.3.3 Timeframe for Data Collection
179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211
4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 188.8.131.52 Generalisability of Findings 184.108.40.206.6.9.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.7.
Training and Rehabilitation 5.7
5.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 220.127.116.11.7.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Education 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.3 Driver Selection.7.1 Theory vs.4 Enforcement
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)
.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.2 Engineering Interventions 18.104.22.168.7.
4 3.1 2.5 4.2 4.11
.1 3.2 3.2
Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.9 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 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.3 3.8
111 121 121 122
2.7 4. 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.5 4.10 4.4
115 117 118 119
4.6 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114
2.3 3.1 4.LIST OF TABLES
Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.18
4.27 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.25
138 139 144 145
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
4.4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.23
. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.24
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
5.35 4.39 4.31 4.38
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
199 206 207
5.2 5.37 4.33 4.34 4.4.6
.32 4.36 4.30 4.
2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship
Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.7 2.LIST OF FIGURES
No. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.1 3.3 2.2 3. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models
Page 36 37 40 42
44 46 47
2. Hatakka.4 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.4
. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.9
2.1 4. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 3.5
Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 4.10
64 80 81 82 83 146
3. 2. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.3 4.2
10 4.12 4.6 4.5 4.13
Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
153 154 155 158 165 166
168 170 172
4.9 4.8 4.7 4.
at least not with real tears. he’d taken the same course as she. they were focused on the errand. He was driving. or wouldn’t. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. But sometimes. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. I knew the fellow. He was very popular with other students. she was riding pillion. programme. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence.PREFACE Accidents occur. but she’d nagged him. to the weary traveler. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. The behaviour of the traveller. I didn’t recognise her at first. She had needed to go on an errand. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I don’t cry much any more. and this thesis is the result.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. Her hands and voice quivered. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. LISREL couldn’t. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I feel like it a bit right now. I hope it makes a contribution. I’m a fairly big guy. and his mental state. . I told her not to worry. They were hurrying. She had been badly injured. I was confused by the results I was getting. just every so often. I like to watch boxing. lane deviation and all the rest. finally. I’m pretty happy with it. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital.
. She started crying and couldn’t stop. But. I got back to work on them. they were frustrated and angry with each other. they are prone to other types of error as well. And they crashed. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. externally-focused frustration. they cut across a lane too quickly. only a trimester or two earlier. How important these factors are. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I feel like it each time I think of that moment.D. My research design needed a serious re-working. is a matter of debate … Obviously. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I wanted to throw in the towel. things were not going well. He didn’t want to go.
Furuichi & Kadoma. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Graham. road. commented that. Mohan & Hyder. Stanton & Pinto.CHAPTER 1
1. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 1999). Mills & Vavrik. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities.
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. anticipation. Sleet. 1996. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2004). policy-makers. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Trick. Green. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. This is particularly salient in developing countries. Iwasaki. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. Olson. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. 2000. 2007. Even after decades of study. Scurfield. state of mind and physical well-being. 2000). Ogden. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 11).g. such as Malaysia. 2002.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. 2006. 2007.. 2000). perceptual (Hong. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. Consistently over the years. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers.. 2004).1
Background of the Study With an estimated 1. cognitive (Vaa. 2001. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. for instance. Theeuwes. Verwey. Sabey (1999). 2004) have been studied extensively.g. including the
. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. judgement. Enns. Peters & Peters. 2001). 2002).
The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. “the literature on personality has a long history. locus of control. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.roadway.
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. The chapter
1. A total of 10. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 2003). including the study of a large number of variables. p. However.332 drivers and
15. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 21).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.2
Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 2002.112).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.790. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 2007). According to Dewar (2002b). The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. 2005). There was a total of 341. McKenna. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 1989). 2004.
. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 1983). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.351.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.
Lajunen & Kaistinen. Ulleberg. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 2001). Wu & Yen. Sumala & Zakowska. aggression
(Parkinson. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Gidron. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary.
Historically. Verwey. 2007). 1991. 2005. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2005). 2003. Parada & Cortes. 2000). Barjonet & Tortosa. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Özkan. Loo. Shinar. 1999. 2006. 2001. 3). 2002) and many others. Huang. 2002. Gal & Syna Desevilya. West & French. Hwang. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Draskóczy. 2004. 1997). Dewar. Renner & Anderle. Rimmö. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Hence. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Wells. 2001. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 2006. Gonzalez. Cohn.
. 2003). 1997). Stewart. Wells-Parker et al. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Hartos & Simons-Martin. locus of control (Arthur. Schwebel. Elander. 2005. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Blasco. 1994. Lajunen & Summala. Vasconcellos. 1997). 2002.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Lin. 2004). 1993. 1997. 2002. 2000. often with widely varying results (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. Severson. 2002b. Ball & Rizzon. 1979. 1997). 2004. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Barrett & Alexander.
A frequent criticism. Parker. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. Speeding. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin.
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.
1. in particular. externally-focused frustration. vehicle. for instance. 1997). 2005). with the risk of roadway casualty?
. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Hampson & Morris. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. 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. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. Sümer (2003). it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. in turn. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation.e.e. The relationship between functional models which predict dynamic road user behaviour and the availability of broader integrative theory in traffic psychology is discussed at length in chapter 2 of this thesis.. however.Increasingly. Noy (1997).. 1997. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 1996. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 2004). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and.
“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.4
The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. p. By focusing on not only demographic. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology.
. (c) driver locus of control. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. (e) driver aggression. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. situated as proximal variables. 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. (d) driver hopelessness.
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour.
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. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. 2005. injuries and deaths. but also on their interactions.
1. gender and ethnicity. (b) driving experience. 9). and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.
. 1974). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. the plethora of theories available. 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. The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. road safety measures and public policy. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. in the applied
sciences. Näätänen & Summala. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. p. Laapotti. 2004. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2004). the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin.
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. Rothengatter. 1993).
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen.
Moreover. Katila & Peräaho. 1997. 2000). Some authors have suggested that. 1997). 2004. There is a growing sentiment that. 2001. 94).Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. “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. Hatakka.
Radin Umar. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. in turn. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. Che Ali. 2001).5
Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research
methods are answered fully in chapter 3. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. To the author’s knowledge.g. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. This broader perspective. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. attitude theory.
. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.
In doing so. 2001). and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.
1. 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. which deals with methodology. It is useful. 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.g.. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver.
aggression. at the conclusion of Study 1C.
Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Black. In Study 1. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. 2006. or outcome. 1B and 1C). the effects of
selected demographic (age. hopelessness. freeway urgency. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
. cultural background). moderating and mediating relationships between variables. second. In each successive study. Study 2 and Study 3. each entailing data collection from a different sample. In this case. Anderson & Tatham. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. driving (experience. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. first. p. Babin. The final result. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. 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. 2003). driving experience. variables (Sekaran. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent.however. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations.
The present research applied an ex post facto research design. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. 711). was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. gender. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A.
representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. verbally administered psychometric instruments. over the course of 30. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was.
Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. a third model was constructed. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1.
1. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport.
Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design.
After the initial model-building had been completed. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments.to 45-minute trips.
In Study 3. 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. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. in fact. This
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.are most important in predicting. Again. In Study 2.
The present research. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. while recognising the distinction. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. as well.
Finally.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. The relationship between the manner
. Keskinen. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. 2002.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Katila & Laapotti. Baxter & Campbell. at least to a certain extent. 1997). did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. However. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Are the attitudes. Boyce & Geller. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. 1990). Manstead. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. the research did not address the question of differences arising from the extent to which drivers considered themselves to be liable for the self-reported crash outcomes. Stradling.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
2006). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. and as a “major public health problem”
(Subramaniam. Recently. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “impatient”. “patient”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 2007). inconsiderate and aggressive. “peaceful”. they indicated “angry”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2005). there were 341. 2005). These are thought to have contributed. Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues.1 2. Over 6. 1989).000
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. “laid-back” and “considerate”. “friendly”. 2003). in aggregate. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “bullies” and “selfish”. In newspaper reports. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 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. economic expansion. 2007). industrialisation and motorisation. 2007).252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. 2005).1. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. 2007). as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. to a rapid increase
. “reckless”. in order of frequency.
Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 Total 279.815 2005 328.040 2004 6.98 deaths per 10.264 2006 341. from 189. Table 2.885 35.395 2006 6.304 in 1994 to 6.
In Malaysia.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Radin Umar.891 8. & Wong.000 vehicles (Law. This suggests that studies. 2005).1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties. 2003.218 2005 6.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.236 49.252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.000 vehicles in 2006. 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).286 9.645 54. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2007). higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.741 38. in Malaysia.
Table 2.552 37.7111 2003 298.425 2003 6.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. Studies
. 2005).415 52.417 47.2).012 19.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.20 deaths per 10. Subramaniam & Law.425 5.287 in 2006.228 9.
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. Abdul Rahman. Generally.287 9.200 9. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.253
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.653 2004 326. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.091 37.
038 13.47 280 1.15 3.431 7.05 2.90 159 0.64 135 0.45 30 0.086 9. 2002.92 2.
.49 450 2.967 100 19.06 608 3. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.71 543 2.820 13.67 206 0.448 17.08 585 2.034 4.99 164 0.329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.416 6.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.41 302 1.26 463 2.81 3.023 5.85 147 0. Table 2.08 2.48 323 1.025 9.389 6. 2001.80 203 0.68 128 0.620 7.11 2.07 2.110 10.54 708 3.29 708 3. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.10 3.67 billion.178 15.05 2.15 572 2.81 1.85 2.94 2. or about 2.63 160 0.16 90 0.50 979 4.48 105 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.77 3. 2003).4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.341 12.709 8.315 17. 2001).40 1.180 10.08 541 2.84 1.005 15.82 1.94 1.65 121 0. Morrison & Ryan. general insurers paid RM1.418 100 19.378 11.921 100 20. in 1999 alone.205 11.07 2.22 150 0. and particularly among younger drivers. 2005).4 billion to RM5.15 43 0.81 2.68 3. It has been reported that.21 3. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.7 billion.23 2.61 99 0.92 1.37 337 1.05 1. Palamara.309 10.91 984 4.08 1.947 10.469 15.049 15.953 17.803 9.31 3.29 2.94 625 3.216 10.593 11.27 458 2.65 2. 2006).2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. 2003)
Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75
Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.97 1.551 12.76 22.72 554 2.56 3.997 14. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. or an average of RM4.
In 1999. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. traffic congestion. 2005). economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. The economic consequences can be estimated.
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. if people want to die? (Lim. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. or the pain of the maimed. 2006). The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa.Yet. 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. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. Some seven years later. 1999). (Bernama. There is no way to A popular
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. which is actually a nightmare. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
. Criticisms of road configuration. lane definition. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. 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.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. What else can we do.
given greater risks of accident. 1997).
how they think. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2007). Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better
. Krishnan & Radin Umar. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. unlike in other countries. Who they are. In a recent newspaper interview. as compared with 1. newspaper columnists. 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.
Researchers. 2007). 2006).(Abdul Rahman et al. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature. 2005). They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving.
Generally. though.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 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. 2005). In 2006.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. for instance. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. is often mentioned as a factor. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 2001.
however. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Ward. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. In a separate study.2
Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. perhaps. Radin Umar. Musa. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. Mohd Nasir. 1996). with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. Ahmad Hariza. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. respectively. they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Law et al. In none of the studies of the MSP. (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.
2. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh.
For instance. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. rather than personality factors.1. Law. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. injuries and fatalities. conspicuity and excessive speeding. 2007).
. causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.
In the same study.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Chalmers & Langley. Bartle & Truman. This is. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder.
road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. It has been estimated by expressway
management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p.122). these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. since 1994. This. the factor that made the high speeds possible. resulted in a myriad of problems. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. generalising to all driving environments and situations. they are accident prone.
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. He argued that. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”.
. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. According to Williamson. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. has linked peninsular communities. 1996). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. 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.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. 110). 121-122). The very monotony of the road surface. however.
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006).1
The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. 784). Among
engineering factors. 1993). Christ. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash.2 2. particularly. This has included the examination of age and gender. 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. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. Human
factors are far more important than engineering factors. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. personality characteristics (Elander. 1991).
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. West and French. Among human factors. 62).2. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. by far. etc. 1993. but rather
. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. levels of driving experience and. experiential. bad road conditions. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems.2. Åberg. The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle.
weak. Lajunen & Summala.by the behaviour of drivers. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. Haddon (1963). unclear. 2002. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 2004) and other contextual variables. Further. motor vehicle crashes has been attributed by af Wahlberg (2003) to three main methodological deficiencies: (a) an absence of reported test-retest reliability of the predictor.
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. to a large degree. 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. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. Ranney. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 2004). 641). 1997. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes.
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. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. prior accident experience (Lin et al. 377). 2005). 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. or at least predict. 1994). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p.
1997a). Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 321). 2002.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p.
. 2003). Nevertheless. 1961.2. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 482).
2. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. information processing. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. there has been an interest in driver personality. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2. The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1996.2
The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 2005). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life.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. Preston & Harris.2. Underwood & Milton. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. Wagenaar & van Koppen. the lack of replication of many studies. 1993).
Ochando. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p.2. anthropology and sociology. in a Spanish survey. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. psychology. but that complex traffic
.” (p.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. ergonomics. medicine. eoncompassing engineering. 246). or the psychological support for intervention. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules.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. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. or peculiar to. Indeed. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. According to Rothengatter (2001).)
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. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives.2.
2. 3). 4). “the task of traffic psychology is to understand.654-655.
To wit. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. transportation planning. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. in the field of traffic. traffic and transportation. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. 2002).
In a recent special edition. 1997. 1158). Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. 2007. In the broadest sense. surrounding environments and
. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment.
Ergonomics has made a contribution. Hyder & Peden. Wilson. Garner and Zwi. in particular. the study of cognitive processes. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. the road environment comprises the vehicle. over the past ten years. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 2000). 1995. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Peden & Hyder. as well. 24). 2004. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Johnston.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. 2003. the road infrastructure and other road users. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002)
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Stanton (2007) noted that. Odero.
predict and modify road user behaviour. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. though. particularly the notions of mental load.3 2. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Noy.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). Jannssen. 2006. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. Walker. 26). 1997. Neerincx & Schriebers.
2. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as:
. ergonomic inputs into this body of knowledge are shifting from a perspective of understanding peoples’ interactions with driving-related artefacts to a role that contributes to the design of interacting systems in order to satisfy user needs and desires (Stanton. error and cognitive modelling. 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. “This school of though. which
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. 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.
Increasingly. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 2004).3.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. 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. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2001).1
Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. Stanton & Young.
2005). which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 1969). in traffic psychology. Reasons for this are likely several.2
Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson.
2. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. To a degree. this may be due to
. p. but for the purposes of this thesis. 1985). On the other hand. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. or both. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. or accident-causing behaviours. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 8)
Any set of systematically interrelated
hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. In traffic psychology. A-18)
Often..3. 1995). often in mathematical form. 2005. 2000. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 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.
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. whether theories should explain everyday driving. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. Healy. each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. many models have been proposed. p.
Notwithstanding these difficulties. perceptions. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. motives and personalities (Robbins. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. attitudes. 189). and most of the time is not especially influential. and emotional determinants. social. Rothengatter.3
The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. feel in control. These may be classified as: theories of individual
differences. risk adaptation theories. … Just because we as
investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that.. etc. enjoy driving. 2002).
. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p.
Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver.
2. 2005).3. 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. minimise delay and driving time. given the complexity of human behaviour. Instead. avoid obstacles. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual.the imprecise definition of concepts. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. cognitive. For over ninety years. 2004. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al.
1979). or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. conscientiousness. McRae &Costa.
Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). 1990).
According to Rothengatter (2002). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. 1995. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. for instance. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
. neuroticism. aged 16 to 29 years. 2000). the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. but not occupational accidents. However. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. 1980) and other safety outcomes. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores.
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. aggression. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. 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. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. anxiety and driving anger. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups.
3. his or her accident proneness. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
.3.finding. 1962. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it. weight and perhaps even intelligence. Research by board statisticians.152). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. 1920). sensori-motor skill. found first that the frequency of accidents. but persists today. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. λ. in certain cases. “irrespective of environment.
In 1917. p. 1984). p. personality. West & French. If each individual has a unique λ-value. during and following the war years. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. occupational and otherwise.
2. the average number of accidents.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 1993. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. just as one can meaure height. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity.
According to Haight (2004). the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. 290). in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin.
replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight.
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. as well. “Because crashes are so infrequent. p. 1956). 1991. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 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. 1939) and many others. perhaps physiological. Johnson (1946). in a Finnish telephone survey. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. in any sample. produced a positive. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. Farmer and Chambers (1926. 2004). 422). however. inappropriate. in traffic or when playing
. 195). inadequate or irrelevant. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work.out what that value is. but did not take into consideration whether. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Scores on the λ dimension. 1929. made an assumption that. subjects reported significant. noting that. 2004). The accident-prone concept. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 294). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa.
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. in successive years. 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. by devising clever tests. None of the experiments. more probably psychological (p. 1997). 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. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. at home.
The concept itself is ill-defined. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. pp. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. 1980. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.sports. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
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. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.. 562). the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. So. Visser. 1998).
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik.05. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 1993). therefore. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.
2. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Stolk. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. 8-9).3. Ultimately. roadway. Pijl. sports and family settings.
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. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. experience more accidents than others. albeit not crash occurrence.
following their review of the literature.accident proneness (Chmiel.
Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. That is. 2000).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. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. in fact. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.3. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. crash barriers. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.. The introduction of
divided highways. large earth-moving
. A driver who enters a
construction zone.3. Elander et al.
2. in a study of driving on icy roads.
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. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy.
However. substantially. For example. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.4. Wilde (1982.
1997). “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. 2001. flat. McHugh & Pender. That is. 1988. 2008. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. 14). Conversely. Wilde. 1989. a driver motoring along a wide. Collectively. 1986. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. at least until the target risk level was reached.
Initially. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. 1994. When others (Haight. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 2005).” (Fuller. Ranney.
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. In two separate studies. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2002). postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. according to the theory. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. p. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. Sagberg. according to the theory. Fosser & Sætermo. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system.vehicles and warning flags. Michon. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. for example. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. in turn.
“The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. but they are not defined in psychological terms.. Fischoff. Slovic.
More than any other driving theory. the community. General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter.” (Vaa. 2008. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. To the contrary. Corrigan & Coombs. 1994. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. 2002). Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 1989. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 223). Also. (p.. 2004). “Costs and benefits are central to the model. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Evans
. 2002). 1151). or the nation” (Brown & Noy. 53). “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. 2004). 1977). Rothengatter. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. Lichtenstein. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. p.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 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.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. however. 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. 2001. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. p. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. pay sufficient attention to risk.
1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. 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. for example. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. At this point.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. Summala. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. O’Neill and Williams (1998). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. or expecting. In addition. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. In other words. 26). 2004. 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. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence.3. p. 81). 92). after a similar review.4. and
2. Rather. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. 1987. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory.
learn how to respond safety to. for instance. Gregersen. age and social variables. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.3. as a result. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. Keskinen.1). would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. A large number of studies show that external motives. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. 1999). On the other hand. Meijman & Roghengatter. 2002. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. much of which arises from personality. Hataaka. and specific driver actions.
2. Summala (1996. Van der Hulst. 1998. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 1996. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Reeder et al. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators.
. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation.5
Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver
behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Glad & Hernetkoskis. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. such as time pressure.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional 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.
Passing and other maneuvers
Figure 2. Automated)
Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control
Lane keeping etc. seemingly concurrently. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
Decision making Supervisory monitoring
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS
Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. but that is not
. 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. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. a property absent within the task cube concept. at the same time. 15).1: Task Cube (from Summala. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. 1996)
Keskinen et al.
sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 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. Fuller
(2000. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility.1). either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 2000)
Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 252).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities.g. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.
2.. affective states).
Compensatory action by others
Loss of control
C<D Task Demands (D)
Figure 2. high speeds. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Most of the time. 1982. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.
institutions or issues (Chaplin. Since 1985.3.7
2.6. 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. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Generally. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. emotional state. 2004.
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.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. p. 40). such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. however. 1985. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. for the most part. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 1985. and Keskinen et al. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative
. Fishbein & Ajzen. 1991). 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. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. time pressure). 126). Two limitations have been noted.
2.Fuller’s theory has. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform the behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. p. objects. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. According to the TRA.3.
and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.
2. then.2). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.” (Azjen. 2007). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. “Even very mundane activities. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). see Figure 2.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”).
.7. however (Sharma & Kanekar. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 24).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. 1985.3. To deal with this uncertainty. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). According to the TPB.
behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). p. which can usually be performed (or not
performed) at will.
Further. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 1989) Within the theory. or sense of self-efficacy.
. 253). it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 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. In one study. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well.e.. 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. when intention is held constant. 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.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.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. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). greater perceived control (i. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour.
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. p. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 2002. 2003).
they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.In another study. based on data extracted from police record forms.1
Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding.2. but after controlling for distance travelled. Similar to later findings by Law et al. vehicles. 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. 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.2). A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers.4 2. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Austin and Carson (2002). Attitude toward speeding.
2. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. 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.1. 2002). for instance. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.4. pedestrians and road environments in a range of
. Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. there
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.
Mahasakpan. 1997. within specific situational contexts. E and especially H factors.4). Seow & Lim. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.g. 1999). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.2. Nguntra. 1998. Koonchote & Tantiratna. however.4. More recently. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. 2000). Richardson & Downe. Law.. the road (R) and the environment (E).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). concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT
Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E)
Figure 2. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V. some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.2
2. R. Swaddiwudhipong. 1994). the vehicle (V). 1997)
.4.locations and settings (e.
it may influence crash risk through some other. 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.g.g. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. as well. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.5). Personality factors within the
. on one hand. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al.g.2. relevant factors are
grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. Therefore. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. Factors within the distal context include not only road.4. By
contrast.. speeding. Within the generic model. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on the other hand. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.. gender.2. sensation seeking. age.. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. aggression). reckless lane transitions or overtaking. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. 283). more proximal variable.
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. substance abuse) that. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. contribute directly to crash outcomes. extraversion.
such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. psychological symptoms. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. depression.g. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. 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.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. 2003)
Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. e. As such.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking.
Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking
e.g. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. aggression
Figure 2. cultural driving habits and beliefs
Relatively stable personality
characteristics. risk taking. sensation seeking.
then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’).6(i). In Figure 2. Figure 2. called the outcome. 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. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. such that path c′ is zero. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. for instance. proximal variables (including safety skill levels.4.2. 2004). 2003). Tix and Barron. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.2. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. M. 2006). moderating or mediating effects. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. If.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. 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.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.
. Also termed intervening variables. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. 1986). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier.
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.
or dependent.7): the impact of a predictor. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. 1986). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. variable (see Figure 2. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. or testing the moderating effect. the impact of a moderator (path b).(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 2.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. or independent variable (path a). and the interaction or product of these two (path c). 2003). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis.
. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome.
hostility. anxiety. Using structured equation modelling. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. dangerous drinking). Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. anger).4.
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. he found that. In turn.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
2. and non-professional students who were mostly students. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. verbal aggression. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. given wide
. more relevant to the model he proposed. errors).Predictor Variable
c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. However. psychoticism).2. hostility. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression.
Bell. Finally. in most cases. Tubré & Tubré. sensation seeking patterns. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
. Greenwood & Yule. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). Sümer. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 1920). Elander et. applied the five factor. 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. Here. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. In a
subsequent study.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Edward. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Day. for high-λ individuals. sensation seeking). 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. 1919. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. as recommended by Elander et al. lapses. 1995. 1990) to a similar analysis. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. or “Big Five”. 1998). trust). personality model (Costa & McRae. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. agreeableness (helpfulness. 2005.
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. 2003. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. (1993) and others. broad-mindedness). the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety).739). Watson. al.
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. conscientiousness (dependability.. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. Arthur. 1993). McRae &Costa. responsibility. 2002.
for instance. optimism. Karanci. have acted on those recommendations.
2. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model.2. 225). material loss. navy. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. phobia. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement.4. reported that driver anger. In another study. Iverson and Rundmo (2002).
. self esteem. Berument and Gunes (2005). hostility. proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors.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. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy.
Although no other studies of driving behaviour. including perceived control. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Sümer. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. prior to the present one. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Sümer. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. They found that the effect of proximal variables.
In other words. using a similar research design.aberrant driving behaviours. anxiety. Bilgic. air force and gendarmerie.
Odero et al.1.. Weinstein & Solomon. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.Downe (2007). uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e..1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Retting. Campbell & Williams.5. 2007)
2. 2003. 1997. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. 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. 2002. Type A. 2003). heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to
Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables
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. Yet. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. Williams & Shabanova.g.5 2. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 1995).
tobacco smoking. 221). 2007). Moscati. However.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 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. in many cases.
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Connery & Stiller. drive while fatigued. McDonald (1994) reported
. for these difficulties. less emotionally mature. at least in part. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. the contrary appears to be true. In fact.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Jehle. specifically more likely to drive too fast. this is a reflection of lifestyle. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. 2001. follow too closely. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Billittier. Bina.. overtake dangerously. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 2002a. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. p. The former is less experienced at driving. 1986). Vassallo et al. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. 1997b. 2002a. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road.
Harré. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Jonah. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Matthews & Moran.
39). are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. it was hypothesised in the present study that. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). and that young drivers. indirectly. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.
Justification of age-related hypotheses. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. as age decreased. Similarly.
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. In the present study. Stevenson et al. since safe driving among younger
drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states.
. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2002). Vissers & Jessurun. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. 1999. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. 2007). (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. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. Ulleberg. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. on crash and injury occurrence.
Shope. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.1. Monárrez-Espino. Tavris. Waller.
2. MacGregor. it was also hypothesised that.g. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. for instance. 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. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. self-reported injury would also increase. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.5. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).. “In all studies and analyses. without exception. more often at hazardous times (e. darkness)” (p. 129). as well. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Elliott. 2004. for instance. Chipman.. p.4). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. it
. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. as age decreased. for instance. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar.failure to use seat-belts.
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. However. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances.
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC].g.
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. This is important.S. While there is much of value in such an approach. At the same time. 1997. state of Washington. Woodcock. which typically took place during evenings and nights. Ball. 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. attracted the most attention … Road safety literature and road safety measures have tended to concentrate on men rather than women and the existing literature on women drivers tends to compare their behaviour with that of men. Welsh. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that. Dobson. Lenard. 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. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Flyte & Garner. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 2001). for instance. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
. found that while male drivers.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. in a sample taken in the U. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. to date. 525526). Brown. (b) females drive increasingly more. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. reported more traffic citations and injuries. worldwide.
Forward. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). on crash and injury occurrence. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. McKenna. In the present study. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. and loss-of-control incidents.
Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Female drivers.. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. were less frequently involved in crash situations. indirectly. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. (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. evaluated their driving skill lower. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. as per the traditional pattern. 11). 2006. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males.anger. In other research. Laapotti. 2003).
In a subsequent report. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. 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. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. et al. Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Turner & McClure. on the other hand. 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. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. though. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers.
. showing that male drivers were. In a study of Dutch drivers. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Lourens et al. just as they had in 1978.
Romano. To a large degree. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Garrett.5. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. nonCatholic countries.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. On the other hand. Harper. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. In one of the few studies reported. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. But. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur.S. 2005). reported few differences between Australians and Finns.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Levine. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Haliburton. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Goldweig and Warren. for instance. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. Marine. Schlundt. differences in fatalities persisted. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Lajunen.
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Corry. Summala and Hartley (1998). lower rates of safety belt use.1. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country.2. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
cultural differences can be more subtle. face saving. hard work. Roman et al. polite behaviour. 1999). 2000. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson.
Differences have not always been consistent. filial piety. respect for elders. religion. 1999). respect for elders. courtesy. indirectly. Strong relationship orientation.. Family centeredness. Indirect communication. In the present study. hierarchical. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Education.. brotherhood/sisterhood. harmony with nature. in fact. family honour. on crash and injury occurrence. However. humility. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Spirituality. Strong relationship orientation. prosperity. While religious affiliation. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future.2).
Table 2. Karma. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. They concluded that there were. shame-driven.
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. peace. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. 2005). Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. respect for knowledge. piety.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations
Man’s relationship with God. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Conscious of what other people say about us. family ties. cooperation. Fatalistic. respect for elders. prosperity and integrity. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al.
Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
2.5.g. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.
A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended
. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. journey lengths. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.. Allied to this.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.
although not always. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 1971).2. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. Laapotti. etc.5. as drivers become more experienced. increased experience usually. directionality of the effect was not predicted.2
2. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. A large number of studies have shown that.
On the other hand. in a given road and traffic scenario. passenger distractions different vehicles. with different weather conditions. 166). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.behaviour in traffic. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. 2001). As experience grows. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. 2002). 1995. Hatakka and Katila. Lajunen & Summala. Keskinen. and as such.
as individuals acquire experience. 2004). environment. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes. in many studies of age and gender
differences. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience.
. 1996. Internal models contain knowledge of route. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
Adapting to the demands of the present situation
Controlling speed. When using those at the top of the hierarchy.
GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING
Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control
GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING
Purpose.by Keskinen.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. direction and position
Figure 2. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. It assumes that. Hataaka and Katila (1992). and sometimes confounded by gender differences. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. 2001). Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events.9). Hatakka. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. 2000)
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. Yet.
Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
especially young male drivers. Ghiselli & Brown. Female
novice drivers. 2004). many studies have focused on the effects of experience. 1954). found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Young novice drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Brown & Ghiselli. A simple measure of driving experience. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs.g.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar.
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Peltzer and Renner (2003). Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city.Laapotti et al. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. 2007). 1948. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Mintz. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. 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. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. for instance. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities.. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. was used in this study. on the other hand. 1949. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.
1995.. 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.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Second. 1971). it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores.2. In individual differences research. indirectly. 2002a). Wilde. it is accepted that the more one travels. Duncan & Brown. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed.5. on crash and injury occurrence. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. for instance. the miles they drive. and type of route where. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 1984). First. 282). 1984.
Generally. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. driving occurs (Dewar. Rothengatter. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 2001. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1986. 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. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
. 1993). 1991). Pelz & Schuman. Elander et al. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. the concept is much less well developed. McKenna.
. Evans (1991) and others. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. 2007. In the present study. indirectly. Bina et al. the driving frequency measure was used as a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variable and the proximal variables of the contextual mediated model.
Odero et al. 2006. Yet. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (1986). it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Lourens et al.
Justification of exposure hypotheses. 2007. on crash and injury occurrence. (1993). Cairns. Ferguson. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. 2003).. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Christie. Mercer (1989) showed that. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. however. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. 2007). there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. Williams & Shabanova. as defined by Elander et al. in countries like the USA. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines.hours than during the forenoon. without correcting for annual mileage.. Towner and Ward.g.
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. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. (1999) have argued that.. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. Teoh & MCartt. although much research does not (e.
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. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. or internals. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 1990).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. Hyman. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. she separated the externality dimension into two. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 2006. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. 1991.5..
Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. Stanley & Burrows. 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 externals . Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.1. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 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.5. In contrast.5. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. 1999).1 Locus of Control 2.3. 1975.2.
.3. Holder & Levi.10). and second. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Levenson (1975.g.3
2. 15). view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.
Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. Sinha & Watson. luck.
Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.1.
. 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. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. According to Phares (1976). They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.Chance
Low Externality – Powerful Others
Low Internality High
Externality .5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.Luckner. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.3.
believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. however. French & Chan. 1999). however. which focused heavily on situational scenarios.
. 1987). 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. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 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. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. On the other hand.
Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour.
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. In a subsequent study. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. 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. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. but results have been inconsistent. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. 39). only partially represented the original locus of control concept.
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. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. offences. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. cognitive.
On the other hand.
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. 1260). They found that. (p. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. In a similar study
investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. although internality was unrelated to DDB. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. 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. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). In a much earlier study. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
. In an important study. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. Gidron.
Arthur et al. That is.
Hsieh.1. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. and the USA. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. as hypothesised.5. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Noy (1997).
2. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Israel. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. is based on the notion that … luck. Canada and Japan.
More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Japan. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Germany. Noting that Chinese culture.
Their results. In very early research.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. indicated that. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). 122). complexity and unpredictability. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al.3. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Italy. France. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. India. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. (1991). with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status.
due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). skill and ability. all internal characteristics.
To the author’s knowledge. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. only Cheung. Chinese and Indian populations. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. 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. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors.
. 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. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others.
In very early research. 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. Chinese of Malay extraction.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. At the same time. 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. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Cheung.
2005). it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. In the present study. Niméus. First.
2. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.3.5. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. (2003).Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Özkan & Lajunen. McMillan.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Finally. Gilbody. 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.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. 1987. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. on crash and injury occurrence. 1995. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. 1975. 2007. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Beresford & Neilly. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Fox & Klerman. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. 1997. Ohberg. Sinha & Watson. et al. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Weissman. Cases usually
. 1973). Kovacs and Weissman. 1991. 2007). while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1975). Montag & Comrey. indirectly. without objective basis.
Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk.
1974). investigated the relationship between hopelessness. In the present study. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. Prociuk. 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. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. in a more detailed study. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. Selzer & Payne. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. Breen and Lussier (1976). luck. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. and negatively predicted by extraversion. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Several authors. Henderson. 1990. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 1998. on crash and injury occurrence. it was
. 1997. for instance. including risky driving. Very early on. indirectly. Mendel.. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. in fact.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress.
Second. 1962). assertiveness and positive emotion. Firestone & Seiden. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions. 1962). 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. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. 1976. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses.
Demakakos.3. 2002). In a largely unrelated study. Koumaki. Bakou. Wright & Crundall. 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. Filetti.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 2000. Barton and Malta. 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. Chapman. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 2000. Wells-Parker et al. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. learned disinhibitory cues. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue.5. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Malta & Blanchard. Lynch & Oetting. including subjective feelings of stress. 2006). and deindividuation. Underwood. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. & Darviri.. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl.
2. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. learned cognitive scripts. 2002.
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Richards. 1999. physiological arousal. Mizell. 2003. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Tzamalouka. Chliaoutaks. 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. Deffenbacher.
through the use of self-statements. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. such as TAPB. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). 1962). as another. More recently. Houston. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. Ellis. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. though. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. 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. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. stress induced by time pressure.
Schwebel et al. (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. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. the display of aggression (p. Groeger (2000). rather than a cause of. Bettencourt. Talley. cultural driving norms and situational conditions.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. However. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. 1976. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. 163). Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
. lack of control over events. Crowson. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Snyder.
Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Frueh & Snyder. 1999. Elofsson & Krakau. insecurity about status.6. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Bettencourt et al. Narda. 1999. Magnavita. Blumenthal. and specific content. Rice. (2003). Petrilli.6 2. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 2000. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency.
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. that the total amount. Undén. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 2006. Lynch. Carbone. 2002.
In the present study. Miyake. Karlberg. impatience. indirectly. 2006). McKee. 1999). Kumashiro & Kume. Thurman. James & Nahl. 2001). competitiveness.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. aggression.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Kamada. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. on crash and injury occurrence. Later still. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 1981.
. Sato. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Deffenbacher.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. 1998. Sani. It was also hypothesised. al. Williams & Haney. 1985).
(2003) with respect to data collection time periods. 1989. (1998). Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. where Type A drivers were 4. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. driving style. 1990). was driving frequency.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. category of vehicle. but not with accident risk. gender.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. however. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. similarly. Consoli. socio-professional category. it may be questionable as to whether subjects would have recorded the same score on the measure of Type A behaviour on the day of their motor vehicle crash as they did when tested in the laboratory up to eight years earlier. In none of these studies. Karlberg et al. age. however. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al.
Nabi. studied police officers in Italy. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Nabi et al. West. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. In a correlational study of British drivers. alcohol consumption. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Chiron. 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. 1979) and number of accidents. Raikkonen. for instance.
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. focused on the time urgency component
. Zzanski & Rosenman. Chastang.
they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. At the same time.
2. ethnicity. Glass. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
continuum. 1977). as measured by the student version of the SJAS.
In a subsequent study.6. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. on the other hand. 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). Gender. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. then use of the Type A/B
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. namely “externally-focused frustration”. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003). Of the four BIT
factors. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data.
Specifically. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. in studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. that are measured by the BIT scale. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales.
They argued that it would be preferable. hopelessness. all that can be concluded about the BIT concept is that composite scores have been indicative of high Type A scores on the student version of the SJAS and that the SJAS was unable to predict three of the four component scores. though. To the author’s knowledge. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. although ethnicity. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. aggression and the amount and content of
In neither of their studies. on the other hand. ethnicity. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. At the present time. locus of control. In the present study. including gender. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. 13). Similarly. driving experience. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety.
1985). 2003. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. 2005. Further. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.. West et al. Miles & Johnson.. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 1993) and. Nabi et al. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence.hostile automatic thought. externally-focused frustration. 1986.
the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers
In Study 1. In Study 1B. 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.1). gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
3. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. each study explored the extent to which demographic.
. with the addition of a third psychological variable. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. aggression (see Figure 3.3). Then.2). the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated.1
Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 1B and 1C. the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.
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
While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.2. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco.
3.2. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. In the present research.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time.
3. a thought process that expects nothing. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger.4
Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. but not chance. 1994). overlapping and ambiguous. 25). For the purposes of the present research.5
Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
. cognitive. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. Weissman. a separate score for internality (I). affective. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. For each of the five studies undertaken. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. 1999). Lester and Trexler (1974).
Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). frustration. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. were also investigated. In the present research. Oetting. 2005). but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 1957. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. Specifically. and. 1996). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. The effects of participants’ total aggression. through fighting. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. hitting or interpersonal violence.
3. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Vallières. Deffenbacher.2.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. expressed through the presence of irritability. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 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. Bergeron & Vallerand. Lynch & Morris. 2003. social alienation and paranoia. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing.
hit or kill another individual.. frequent lane changing. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. 1998). (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.
3. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.2.. and. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. not allowing others to merge or overtake. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.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. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.g. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. 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. the BIT score. competitiveness. characterised by excessive impatience. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP).
(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. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. to the extent of inattention conditions.them (e.8
Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.
3. In the resulting measure of this variable.3 3. travel frequency.2.g. Then.
3. three demographic variables (driver age. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
while driving. 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. 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 Study 1A. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2.3. In the resulting measure of this variable. Then. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. the influence of driving experience.9
Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.1
Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. and.
the influence of driving characteristics. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. In this study. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. In Study 1B. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Finally. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving characteristics. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then. In this study.
3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B.3. travel frequency.2
Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. 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. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. (b) the moderating effect of locus
. travel frequency. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then. Finally. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Figure 3. hopelessness. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.3
Study 1C In Study 1C. three demographic variables (driver age.
using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. Figure 3.3.4
Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.
. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.
It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3. the influence of
experience. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. In Study 3. This was justified for three reasons. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Then. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.5
Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Then. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. In Study 3.3. Figure 3. Finally.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.
3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Finally. and (b) taxi experience. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. Figure 3. First.
3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.
2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. 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.
3.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
H1.2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Third.2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.4: 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. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score
. Second.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
Table 3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.
3.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control
H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others
Y Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.Table 3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3.
Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a
car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic
H14. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
Y Y Y
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the
. Participants from the first round of data collection were
included in Study 1A.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts
H13. within a 14-month period.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.Table 3.5 3. using the same procedures as in Study 1.5. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.
1978). Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. In all cases. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Novaco. Data collection took place within the taxicab. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. by postal mail. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester.2.
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. while participants were driving.5.
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. I try to urge its driver to move
3.g. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. in the case of Study 3 participants. 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 had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
3. Stokols. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.5. For inclusion in the study. during a point to point trip.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Stokals & Campbell.time when they travelled.
” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. with a coefficient alpha of .
In a later study. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Usurpation of right-ofway
No. Externally-focused frustration
IV. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated .” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.
Table 3.” “While travelling to work (or to school).on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.”
II. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Destination-activity orientation
. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. of items
“When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. to school or to an appointment with someone. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. On each form.80. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.91) were found to be internally consistent.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor
I.” “On a clear highway. Freeway urgency
III.2. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. as indicated in table 3. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.
It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives.
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.5. References to the faster. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.
3. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives.2. A sample item is “When I get what I want.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.
Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.
if endorsed. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. 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”.”
. 2005. Of the 20 true-false statements. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. I may tell them what I think of them.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.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. Beck et al.3).” “If I’m angry enough. 1993. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.3. 1996). anger. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “When someone really irritates me.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. Tanaka et al. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. verbal aggression.” “When people annoy me.2. 1982.2. and five subscales measure physical aggression.5. or 0. if not.5. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.” “I get into fights more than most people. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. I might give him or her the silent treatment. Durham. I may mess up someone’s work.
3. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 1974).” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Table 3.
5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. of Items
11 10 9 30
“If I could get away with it.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor
Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total
No. Boyd. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. Snyder et al. Williams.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from .” “I want to get back at this person. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.2. 1997.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.2.”
3.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Shapiro. gender. 1997.91 for physical aggression.
Table 3.5.4). . 2000). 5 = “all the time”). ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and
respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving.71 to .5. 1996).
3. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.88 and .High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Cascardi & Pythress. with coefficient alpha values of . derogation of others and revenge respectively.
.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.92. Three factors – physical aggression. age.
(d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. upon request. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. BIT scale. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. BHS.6 3. Levenson.1
Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. between the two forms of the BIT.
In studies 1 and 2. with an e-mail summary of results.
After the briefing period. BIT scale and AQ. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second.6.3. in random order. Study 1C: PIF. AQ and HAT. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BHS. Levenson. Levenson and BIT scale. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. BHS. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Study 1B: PIF.
data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Data collection took place in taxicabs. four female final-year undergraduate students.
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Levenson Locus of Control scale. Taxis were flagged down at roadside.
3. 13. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 2002).2
Study 3 For study 3. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area.6. aged 22 to 24 years. as well.5.
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research.3. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. At initial contact.0.7
Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 2004). AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. AQ and Levenson scales.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.
Independent-sample t-tests. The PIF was always administered first. BIT. For safety reasons. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose.
. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. rel. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. Two to four times daily. Over the course of the trip. rel.
analyses of variance (ANOVA). 8.5.
Table 3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control
H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement
H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control
Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness
H5.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness
H6.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT
H2.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT
H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT
H3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.
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
H13.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.Table 3.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
. the higher the BIT level H8. the lower the BIT level H8.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11. 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 H9.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT
H8.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression
H10.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).3: Age influences the level of Aggression
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT
H11.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis:
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT
GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance
The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation
H12.1: The higher the Internality.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.7. 2000). In the present
3. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT
H14. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. hopelessness. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1
Independent-sample t-tests Generally.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
When significant differences were observed.
. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.Table 3. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.7. In the present
research.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.3: Thoughts of Revenge have a positive influence on BIT
Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Moderating Effect of HAT on the Aggression-BIT Relation
H15. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.
the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). if so. Also. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. In the present research. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. hopelessness.
3.7.3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and 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. to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.
Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and. For instance. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. In the present research.7. second. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.
3. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.5
Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables.7.3
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. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable.
to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. 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).
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables.7 Structural Equation Modelling. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.7. SEM was carried out. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. In the present research. logistic regression. using LISREL. on the other hand. 3. That is. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury 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. 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. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. Goodness-of-fit indicates how
. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.7. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. 710).
the better the model is said to fit. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. 2006. Thus. 745). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
In the present research. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI). additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. p. including: (1) two absolute indexes. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI).. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. For Study 1C. in fact. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same.
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. 1998) – presently exists. 1998). According to Marsh et al. (Hair et al. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. If a
researcher’s theory were perfect.
7. Thus.10 indicate poor fit. pp.0.7. 2006). the higher the probability associated with χ2. the normed fit index (NFI). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.00 in which values greater than . However. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).
3.7. the ratio indicates a good fit.
.1 Chi-Square (χ2).validation index (ECVI). 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. Hair et al.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. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7. 2006). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.
3.7. 1998.7. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). one incremental index. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.
3. 112). an insignificant p-value is expected. and a measure of parsimony fit.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. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 1998).
Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. the normed fit index (NFI.00. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. with higher values indicating better fit.00.. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.
3.7. 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. 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. Thus. an RMR greater than .5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. The index can range from zero to 1.7.00 with value more than .7. Bentler & Bonnet. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.7. Values range from zero to 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.00. 2006).7. The index ranges between zero and 1.
3. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00 being indicative of good fit.7.
.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. Tanaka & Huba.00 with value closes to 1.
7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.
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. It should be noted that. James. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix..7. 2006. 750). it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.7.7. considering its fit relative to its complexity.00.00. in this case.7. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al..
3. Browne & Cudeck. In such cases. p. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. 1994). Values range between zero and 1. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. Although values range from zero to 1.3.
. 2006). The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. Like other parsimony fit indices. Mulaik & Brett.
in this case. In this case.05.
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 1976). If the opposite holds. 1976. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=.
3. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 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. 2000). the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 37). and platykurtic if it is less peaked. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. it is said to be positively skewed. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.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. p. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end.7.
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. 1956).7.3. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.
Marcoulides & Hershberger.
. 2005. A commonly used guideline is that. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1.normality of variable distributions. Barrett & Morgan. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 1997).
Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
university. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research.9% 977 100% 100%
.5% 57.9% 23.4% 333 62. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.
Table 4.4% 146 14.1% 34. Then.4% 269 27.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1
Description of the Samples Age.
4.9% 14. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1 4.1% 562 57.1% 121 22. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. with a mean age of 20.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.6% 12.3% 8.6% 82 15.6% 15.9%
Total 441 100% 45.1: 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 33.5% 6.1. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% 27.1). Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.13 years (SD = 1.55).1% 536 100% 54. 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.
9 per cent).
In Study 2. range of 18 to 26).53.
In Study 3.
In Study 1A.01 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.
In Study 1B.35. 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. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. range from 18 to 29). with a mean age of 20. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 149 taxicab drivers participated. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20.89 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 19.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.
In Study 1C.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.43 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20. followed by Malay (27.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.25 years (SD = 1.5 per cent).63.68.
25 43. Table 4.19 S. Johor or Perak made up 53.5
.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 % 12.43 19.3% of the sample.19 years (SD = 11.2: Age.01 20.2
Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.7 4.D.65.89 20.63 11. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. range from 23 to 73).2 7.1 6.3 11.
Table 4.1. The mean age was 43. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.53 1. 2 and 3
Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. SD = standard deviation
4. Kuala Lumpur.68 1.65
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 . Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.3).
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.35 1. 1.5 8.4% of the sample.2. 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university.9 2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.
4 0.4 4.1.2 2. but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.7 3.2 17.7 100
4.0 10. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. As the sample was
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 % 13.9 0. Perak or Penang made up 50.1% of the sample.1 9.9 7.6 1.4).0 7.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
7.8 5.8 11.7 11.8 9.2 3.5 14.6 100
4.6 2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.9% of the sample.5 1.
no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.
In the present research.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.
. 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. 1978). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 2000).
4. 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.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. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4.5).2 4.
738 .735 .720 .739 .733 .881
α .737 .754 .827 .910 .783 .808 .742 .811 .810 .715 .701 .727 .707 .782 .714 .798 .824 .727 .747 .808 .830 .786 .711 .772
α .715 .703 .749
.734 .906 .781 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable
α .887 .783 .730 .774 .782 .817 .740 .702 .720 .890 .788 .904 .718 .740 .768
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
.5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers
Study 1C (N=252)
No.741 . of Item α
Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers
Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .756 .
values ranging from .
.2. with minimal error variance caused by wording. ordering or other test construction factors” (p.3
Validity Test Results In the present research.857 .806 . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. RMSEA values less than . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. more than .805 .903 .80.800 . 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 .80 or above).916 . 1998).801 . and those greater than .811 . 1998). 1985).05 indicate good fit. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.804 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom.807 Study 1B .808 Study 2 .
Table 4.08 to .958 .804 Study 1C .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.953 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.
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. only Form A was used.807 . In Study 3.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. Byrne.6.876 .2.10 indicate a mediocre fit. 1998).804 . 205).803 . depending on which is used (Byrne.802
4. The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.929 .4. it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.
00.96 .98 .070 . externally-focused frustration.96 .000
. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.97 1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.99
. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. RMSEA values in each case were less than .00
4. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 1.98 1.097
.000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. 1992). freeway urgency.93 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.000 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.90.99 . As shown in Table 4.90.00 1.061 .00 .00 .95 1.097 .000 .7.00 1.000 .054
.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 1.96 1.98 1.00 1.074 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .00 .048 .99
. Table 4.024
.91 .047 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).92 .098 .97 .00 .000 . it is possible to have negative GFI.00 (the closer to 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.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
.00 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .97 1.99
.000 .00 1. and destination-activity orientation.92 1. A third statistic.98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.99
.92 .98 .00 .00 1.077 .00
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.3.2.00 1. indicating good fits.91 .96 .000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
081 .059 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .92 .3.3. anger (ANG).
Table 4.98 .98 .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).96 .00 .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4. RMSEA values were less than .071 .95
1. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.083 .92
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.085 .081 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.93 .2.000 .99 .8.97
.95 .93 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. verbal aggression (VER).096
. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).98 .4. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. indicating good fits (See Table 4.091
.2. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
.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)
.100. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).91 .91 .96 .90.92 .99 .058 .93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.91
.030 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).
98 .025 .98 .090 .97 .
Table 4. CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. indicating good fits (See Table 4.9). indicating good fit (see Table 4. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .98 .98 .(IND).081 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. RMSEA values were less than .96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.096 .92 .98 .10).95 .088
.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI
.98 .98 .90.94 .088
.095 .97 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.95 . RMSEA values were less than .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B
Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.97 .058 .92 .97
.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).070 .100.90.98 .94 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .083
. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.089 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.2.96 .070 .98 .081 .97 .098 .100. and both GFI and CFI were more than .99 . derogation of others and revenge.97 .047 .055 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
Table 4.96 .92 .98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98
.98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.098 .
920(.091(.219 (.297(.280) -.099(.192) 1.403(.410(.331(.280) .140) .409(.140) . Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) -.140) -.379(.099) 1.179(. 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 1.280) .107 (.192(.280) -.154(.085) 1.140) ..064(.353(.183) 1.408(.106) 1.057) 1.278(.080(.356 (.107) 1.052) 1.560(.140) .069) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.297(.191) 1.280) -.204(.099(.3
Normality.246(.140) -.102) 1.239 (.034 (.280) . Table 4.120) 1.140) .140) -.082 (.188(.280) .064(.140) -.037(.091) 1.064) 1.280) . Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.280) -. 1997).323 (. 2005.280) . Table 4.105 (.260) .203(.186) 1.020 (.091(.409(.280) .140) .226 (.126(.179(.140) -. 2006).351 (. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) -.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.805(.453(.05).4.140)
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
.582(.140) -.280) -.280) -.022 (.656(.280) .875(.010 (.332 (.094 (.140) -.719(.278(.280) -..140) .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.126(.428) .140) .
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.280) .962 (.241(.140) -.297 (.099) 1.146(. In all cases.085 (. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.11: Normality Tests.085) 1.195 (.140) .560(.183) 1.280) .256 (.085 (.511(.140) -.280) .280) .190) 1.280) -.
236(.128) .011 (.159(.540(.154) -.064) 1.130(.098) 1.120(.Table 4.070 (.435) .435) -.100) .153) -.503(.435) -.131(.084) 1.359 (.973(306) .948(.306) .469) 1.962 (.354 (.106 (.497(.994(.978(.223 (.210) .062(.293 (.153) .306) .057) 1.959 (.884(.153) .214) 1.053(.153) .003 (.306) -.247) .417) -.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
.306) -.267) .153) .913(.277(.098) 1.219) .102) .327 (.715(.270) 1.360) .426) .256(.847 (.279 (.156(.417) -.271(.681(.435) -.297 (.210) .209(.219) .911 (305) 1.841(.153) .317) 1.417) .099) 1.915(.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 1.219) -.435) -.852(.030(.153) -.852(.417) -.417) -.417) -.210) -.979(.101) 1.321) 1.567(.537(.986 (.219) -.306) .138(.266 (.219) .913 (.210) .295(.807 (.106(.276 (.264) .443(.478(.417) .360) -.501(.360) .435) -.962(.088 (.822 (.210) .467(.435) -.306) -.198(.417) -.147(.210) -.366) 1.640(.629(.195 (.138) 1.153) .024 (.276(.160 (.022 (.153) .919 (.244(.417) .219) .306) .128 (.052) 1.300(.567(.053(.153) .805 (.247) 1.219) -.324(.219) .210) -.417) -.259) .006(.113 (.306) -.210) .153) 983(.370(.359 (.048(.451(.392(.153) .306) .417) -.265) 1.414(.306) -.812(.187) 1.001 (.157) .366(.110 (.799(.210) .153) .142(.106(.463(.940(.051) 1.022 (.713(.007(.533) .024 (.972(.186(.362(.135) 1.417) .952(.360) .306) -.375) 1.510) 1.051) .147(.338 (.210) .104) 1.719(.210) .153) .052) 1.153) .423(.435) -.
males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. with 44.13). if so.12. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.4. column c). Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. column b). However.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.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence
OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2
More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. column a). For motorcycle drivers.
Table 4. injury occurrence was much higher.3 per cent being hospitalised.12.12. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.
involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.
Table 4.Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32
More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122)
Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.05).05).1
Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation. in Study 1B. 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. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. However. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.
Table 4. All these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Also.
. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.5 4.5. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.05). 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. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.15 shows means.
Table 4. crash occurrence and crash injury.
Study 1B. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Table 4.16 shows means.17 shows means. standard deviations and relationships
00 165.96 19.435** .818** 1 .306** .513** .566**
-.516** 1 -.191** .58 .209** 1 .434** .202** .45 6.Table 4.476 .04 26.88 7.316** .247** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9.22 3.482** .544** -.942** 1 .15: Means.662** 1 .371** .69 24.901** .376** .08 2.280** .152** .416**
1 .211** .553** -.186** .405** .533** .381** .76 3.342** -.339** .391** -.57 4.155** .147* -.246** .3455 .218** .97 43.239** .388** .5 5.201** .44 4.376** .471** .716** .027 1 .231** .78 .147* .804** .D.345** 1 -.749** .562** -.278** .036 .01 level (2-tailed)
1 -.396** .52 34.2691
.23 2. 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.340** .331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .64 7.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .625** .
103 -.213** .521** .380** .69 8.816** .542** .84 5.25 8 18.003 .602**
.240** .964** 1 .50 5.462** .254** .97 4 4.697** 1 .279** .407** 1 -.372** .418** .172** .147** .254** .393** .176* .430** .66 3.731** .400** .60 10 16.85 9.294** 1 .067 -.461** .200** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.382** 1 -.341** .86 6.438** 1 .386** .48 3.496** .555** .91 15 27.039 .380** .587** 1 -.342** .518** .213** .162** .762** .286* .275** .148* .278** 1 -.276** .157** .334** .Table 4.586** .159 -.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .434** .48 5.9 13 46.378** .481** .9 28.178** .489**.268** .403** .167** .337** .335** .452** .369** .53 19.4960 17 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .9 12 71.343** .842** 1 .448** .213** .414** .173* .103 -.358** .355** .520** .408** .540** .55 9 21.5695 .150** .343** .401** .440**.509** .41 3.172** .00 14 19.028 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1 1 9.669** 1 -.523** .445** .505** .089 -.338** .3079 .363** .347** 1 -.140* .324** .225** .411** .366** .22 4.331** .779** 1 -.921** .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 .16: Means.06 3 2.272** .298** .82 7 13.028 .516** .550** .D.491** .236** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.195** .56 2 4.331** .319** .01 level (2-tailed)
.355** .855** .688**.531** .514** .271** .254** .584** -.45 5 87.763** .355** .4624
1 -.5 6 17.353** .013
.444** .099 .515** .312** 1 -.847** .43 12.491** .051 .463** .443** .376** .816** .153** .310** .84 7.071 .14 4.
261** .434** .97 -.278** .615** .373** .230** .354** 1 5 88.221** .151* .302** .311** .747** .00 -.81 5.183** .229** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.592** .075 .095 .310** .588** 1 14 20.8 -.057 .199** .31 3.501 .395** 1 11 65.119* 1 21 .481** .277** .423** .52 7.185** .210** .428** .385** .277**.186** .308** .033 .196** .Table 4.534** 1 18 19.70 1 2 4.166** .70 3.275** .228** .545** .725** .38 5.340** .367** .86 -.278** .069 .01 level (2-tailed)
.17 -.202** .402** .296** .270** .58 9.226** .379** .137* .454** .264** .131* .320** .402** .296** .192** .17 -.456** .364** .98 4.735** .895** 1 13 26.42 3.641** 1 4 4.345** .120 .181** .291** .355** .356** .178** .130** .304** .357** .506** .804** .216** .212** .530** .342** .219** .531** 1 10 16.03 5.095 .446** .245** .224** .191** 1 3 .526** .9 -.745** 1 7 13.305** .148** .003 .404** .191** .D.275** .306** .323** .296** .218** .324** .338** .259** .265** 1 19 25.203** .139** .448** .424** 1 12 18.856** 1 17 43.076 .254** .392** .7 -.508** .241** .193**.36 -.038 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1 1 10.465** .281** .565** .183** .235** .37 6.85 19.241** .313** .192**.162**.263** .292** .230 .110 .235** .210**.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .862** .7 28.288** .174** .106 .227** .368** .082 .348** 1 6 16.378** .277** 1 8 19.9 -.349** 1 16 67.250** .69 -.518** .293** .222** .259** .343** .271** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.224**.370** .413** .292** .258** .189** .483** .183** .314** .17: Means.49 6.451** .81 -.150* .422 -.270** .158** .252** .749** .209** .221** .141* .189** .286** .387** .516 .167** .476** .109 .228** .502** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .343** .304** .016 .05 -.401** .377** .151* .306** .366** .364**.081 .838** .202** .-181** .281** .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 .307**.18 -.199**.80 17.383** .254** .101**.246** .91 -.251** .268**.484** .89 5.412** .390** .64 -.70 8.78 8.103** .298** .422** 1 9 22.31 -.03 -.150* .230** .11 12.294** .109 .051 .166** .67 7.
Results of Study 2 Table 4.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. standard deviations and relationships between distal. freeway urgency. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. all BIT subscales. However. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation.
Similar to observed results in study 1A. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.
. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.18 shows means. 1B and 1C.
4. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.
614** .D.30 .941** 1 .917 3.18: Means.66 1.314** .251** .233** .200* -.6803 .240** .025 -.5738
8.081 8.219** .01 level (2-tailed)
.349** .317** .201* .750** .325** .264** . 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.409** .139 .183*
1 .500** .48 5.212* .14 27.313** 1 .226** .383** .179 7.150 -.367** .072 .66 5.415** .122 7.880 .028 1 .356** .758** 1 .06 20.182* -.232** .165
.4683 .630** .323 23.376** .485 11.043 .55 175.580** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .035 3.269** .111 -.418** .795** 1
* Correlation is significant at . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 .50 73.290** .413** .334** .Table 4.876** .374** .167 .291** .76 48.428** .562** 1 .371** -.259** .413** 1 .621 3.192* -.535**
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. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19. In this study. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.19 shows means. However. In general. Differing from Studies 1A. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1B.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.5. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C.4. 1C and 2.
As indicated in Table 4. correlations between I and distal. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.
-.020 . 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
12.43 8.604** .51 3.048 .10 1.371** .171
.17 20.173* .06 2.218* .12 4.071 .128 .150** .121 .622** .373** .204* .091 .147** .521** .234** .443**
1 .235** .165 .156 .021
* Correlation is significant at .588** 1 .19: Means.032
1 .276** .039 .200* .117 .82 11.418** .177
.11 15.636** .401** -.023 -.99 10.025 -.030 .749** .148* .561** 1 .213** .117 .109 -.646** .454** .816** .378** 1 .286*
1 .095 .271** .32
7.42 66.289** 1 .193* -.028 .072 -.807** .74 15.275** .222* .166 .618** 1 .112 -.324** .061 .54 11.338** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .161 -.106 .240** .Table 4.236** .643** .018 -.721** .82 5.060 .2000 .246** .31 8.84 2.194*
1 .178** .01 level (2-tailed)
.235** .658** .263** .88
1 .180** .023 .255** .245** .240** .35 11.072 .05 3.194* .4 5.07 8.182* -.172** .167** .040 .091 -.225** .092** .13 3.268** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.864** 1 .08 15.114 .103 .0301 .853** .116 .576** .229** .32 3.D.261** .292** .257** .404 .013
.149 .054 .120 .3 6.156 .117 .153**
1 .070 -.152 .151 -.213** .528** 1 .060 -.15 32.872** .65 75.149 .121 .141 .197* .45 19.
20).01 B=. p<.172.6
Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3. freeway urgency.1.01 B=. p<.01. p<.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=. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=. p<.01 B=.1 through H1.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.095. p<. These results supported H1.278.1.01 Study 1C B=.3 inclusive. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<.1. p<.063.4 was not supported.
4. p<.01. p<.048. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. H1. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency. p<.01 and Study 3: B=.135.180.117.01).095. p<.1
Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. Study 1B: B=. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.315.01 Study 1B B=.229.6.125.080.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration.088 p<. p<.120. p<.01. p<.090. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.146. p<.041.102. p<. p<.01 B=.202. Study 1C: B=.1).01 B=.034.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=. p<. For the destination-activity factor.238. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
occurrence. Study 2: B=.1.01 B=.01 B=.063. Table 4.01
.4.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.04.
01.23 and Table 4.01 B=.158.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.120.087. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.118. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 and Study 2: B=.
. Table 4. p<. p<.01 B=.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.064. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.6. p<. p<. freeway urgency.01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. p<. p<. Study 1C: B=.24.01 B=.075 p<. p<.059. Study 1B: B=.165. These results supported H1.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
4.038. p<. p<. respectively).035. p<.035.033 p<.095.074.01 B=.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence
Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.069.01 B=.01.21).01 B=.01 B=. p<.01).01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.2
Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically
significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.091.05 Study 1B B=.019. Table 4. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=.2.054. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.140. 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=.01 B=. p<.22. p<.
06 19.64 26.25
5.82 33.32 28.43 20.35 155.48 171.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301)
Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.52 25.73 170.68 26.35
8.15 161.31 161.41 167.50
28.98 171.29 21.320**
64 110 41 17 69
110 81 37 45 29
181.92 157.35 24.60 185.16
21. N M SD F
221 60 19 2
168.82 168.30 22.23: 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<.Table 4. * p<.32 147.98 33.25 25.01.184**
27.01 N M SD F
186 88 18 9
161.44 178.35 33.03
01 14.39 19.345*
67 69 33 45 38
.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<.01).
In Study 2. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. N M SD F
187 46 16 3
159.61 165.05) and about once every two weeks (p<. and those who almost never travelled (p<.12 161.05.00 14.25). In Study 1B.01).73 157.05).05). the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.12 154. On the other hand. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.Table 4.81 167.88 167. 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<.01). drivers who travelled everyday had
significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.14 15.77 16.29
16.53 17.01.73 24.05). about once every two weeks (p<.01). * p<. In Study 1C.060**
In Study 1A. Drivers who travelled about
once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.01).06
71 168. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.859 11.09 15.74 77. N.05.50 184.55 73.97 8.37 9.
3.437 (N.68 20.89 20. * p<.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<.S.64
10.05. * p<.50
24.26 10. However.58 188.52 172. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.33 78.60 72.753*
38 48 27 20
52 32 7 17 14
182.62 10.S.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<.920 (N. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.80 22.27 14.81 175.S)
Therefore. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
. N.01. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. 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.316
In Study 3. Not significant N M SD F
3 16 23 91
82.81 161.26).81 22. Not significant N M SD F
77 31 10 4
174.82 162. In other words.Table 4.94 20.31 78.47
5. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.65 73.01.31
ANOVA results for age. 1B. In this case.2. In Study 2.1 and H2. In Studies 1A. only H2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 1B. only H2.
. the lower was the total BIT score. In Study 3.
4.been predicted by H2.27). For ethnicity.2. 1C and 2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.1 was confirmed. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.
ethnicity and age – were investigated.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. Contrary to the subhypothesis. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.3
Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. though.6. Again. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. however. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.
Not Applicable F=3. p<.05). Externality-Chance (C). male
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A.01 F=1.56.
t=2.68.1 and H3. 1C and Study 2.01 F=9.01 F=2. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.05).01 F=8.Table 4. t(250) = 2.3 was not supported.12. p<.S.44. N.S. p<. N. In Study 1A and Study 2. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.62.01).99. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).2 were confirmed.
t=3. N.05 F=11.05. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. N.01 F=.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age
t=2.01 F=19. p<. p<. H3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. N. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.
Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control
were also investigated. it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.01 F=1. p<. In Study 1C. In Study 1B. In Study 1B. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In all studies. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.05 F=4. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.98. H3.9. In Study 3.81.562. however.S. p<.66.2 was confirmed.53.05.
05.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.
In Study 1B.05 and p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.941.
For Studies 1A. 299) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.05 respectively. p<. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.01. In Study 1C. 298) = 6. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.05). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 249) = 3. p<. 298) = 3.566.05. p<.
In Study 1A.05 respectively. F(2.05 and F(2. t(299) = 2. t(120) = 2. F(2. E and P scores. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.01).462. 299) = 3.041. p<. 298) = 3. p<.05 and F(2.01).503.
In Study 2.490. F(2. p<. 1C. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. F(2. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.01 respectively.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05). p<. 1B. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.476. 119) = 5.527.370.
3.2. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.3.
However. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. H5.3 were supported.01). In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.079. H4. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.1. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. p<. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. In Study 1. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.1. H4. in Study 2.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. that age influences hopelessness. 1B or 1C. H5. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.1 and H5.
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.6. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. were supported.
4.2.05. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. H4.
Therefore. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.2.Therefore. H4.2 and H4. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.3 were not supported. In addition. t(120) = 2.2 and H4. so H4.3 was supported. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.3. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2.3.1.
I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -. p<.1. H6.6.01 and B = .28).354.01. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .306.290.342.2 and H6. In Study 1B. respectively). p<. p<. p<. In Study 1C.254.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .3.371.186. that internality would influence hopelessness. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. that the three locus of control dimensions
influence hopelessness. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported.1. p<.
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01 and B = . H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.254. was not supported. p<. respectively). p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. H6.341.4.01 and (B = .01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . 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 4.01 and B = . respectively).239. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.
Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01. p<.6
Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.6.312. H6.01 respectively).3. p<. In Study 2. were supported.
. p<.01.2 and H6.
05) but not for freeway urgency.280. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.287. externally-focused frustration (B = .05
In Study 1A.
. freeway urgency (B = . p<.05). p<.151. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.287.254. was supported in Studies 1A.415.05 Study 2 B=.141.05 Study 1C B=. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 Study 1B B=.254. In Study 2. p<.4.151. p<. p<. In Study 1B.01 B=.317.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .151. p<.157. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.418. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.275. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<.288.415.Table 4.2.247. B=. freeway urgency (B =.349.
Therefore. p<.05). p<. p<.01). p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=.S. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. p<. In Study 1C.01).280. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. p<. p<.317.01).01 B=.05 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).232.01). p<.01 B=. p<.141.191.247.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .278. p<.01 B=.151. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.153. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.3 and H7.01).01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.01 B=.01 B=. N.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=.275. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=. p<.1. p<.153.05 B=. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.099.05).157.01 B=. H7. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<.01 B=.232. p<. p<. 1C and 2. H7. H7. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.200.01 B=. p<.349.191.
01 B=-.077.168.388.044. p<.1 and H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. N. p<.01 B=.3. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. H8. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.01 B=. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.
Table 4.S.1. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).753. p<.01 B=.01 B=.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. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. p<.01 B=-. H8. that the higher the subscale score for I. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. where only H8.229.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.6. H8. N.4.006. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.315.01 B=. B=. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. provided support for hypothesis H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.
Therefore.339.336. B=. p<.S.239. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.208.1. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.S. p<.3. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=-. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.1.178.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
B=-.2.2 and H8.2.29). p<.
. p<. p<.05 B=.625. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.01 B=-. With regard to H8.297. but not H8. With regard to H8.
1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. Further.05. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.909. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<.01 (see Figure 4.01 and F=8.
. F=4. p<.272. p<. F=4.1). 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.704. In Study 1C.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.01 (see Figure 4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1).710.581. F=7. p<. p<.
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
150 low high
Figure 4.2). =8. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.
hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.327. F=4.05.9
Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A.3).00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 low high
Figure 4. However.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way
4. B = .033. multiple regression showed mixed results. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way
74. First.444.282. 1B and 1C. p<. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. in Study 2. p<.00
66.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 MalaysianIndian
64. 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 4.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Kurtosis=-.
371). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.608.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.4).463. F=18.3: 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
. p<. p<.BIT Level
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Figure 4.459. 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 4.01. R2=.01. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.070. B = .167.
4.31). 1C and 3. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
.S t=1.164. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. and H9. the H9. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. However. N. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.01 t=-. were supported. p<. p<. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. p<.1.032.30: 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.S t=2.2.780.467. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.01.521.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.820.690. N. F(2.
Table 4.05 respectively.05 t=. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.187.30).690.05 t=4. p<. In Study 1C.01 t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. p<. N.210. p<. p<. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<. N. p<.S t=2.6. t(300) = 2.603.603.01 t=4. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.480. p<.S.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. 249) = 5. With motorcycle drivers. In both studies. however.Therefore. In Study 1B and Study 3.01 t=2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. p<. and t(250) = 2.677.01 (see table 4. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.298.05 Study 1C t=2.
299) = 5. N. N.
Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.S.S.432.182. In Study 1B.398. p<.S. p<.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.01.S. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=1. N.521. N. N. F=5. N. F(2.021. N.561.041.564.01 F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. p<. F=1.422. p<.S. F=2. p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F(2. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.01).01). p<.
Table 4.432.S. p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.S.S. N.01).077.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.763.041. N. N.05 Study 1C F=5.804. N.05.155. F=4. F=1.629. F=2.526. F=1.01). In Study 1C.632. N.S F=10. F=.S. mean IND scores of Malay.01 F=2.S.567. 249) = 10. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.
.S. In Study 3.S.31: Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
Total Aggression score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B F=2. mixed results were found. F=1. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F(2.S.01. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.57. 299) = 4. F=2.01 Study 3 F=1.904.
3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. H11.4.3 and H11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.29). the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. externally-focused frustration.32). with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.
. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. respectively. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4.3 and H11.1. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. However.Therefore.
4. H10. freeway urgency. H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.
In Study 3. H11.4. VER and IND subscale scores.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. H10. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. In Studies 1B and 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. were supported. The higher the total aggression scores.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. Therefore. however. H10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.2. were all supported.6. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. only H11. was supported. freeway urgency. 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.
Table 4. However. p<.263.01 respectively. 1B. p<.01 B=.5). hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01.01.01 B=.216. p<.387.01 respectively.235. B = . and B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01. and B = .
Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested.05 B=. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. B=.380. Study 2 and Study 3. B = . Study 1C and Study 3.S. respectively. B = .491.S. Similarly.370.204. p<. N. p<. p<. the higher were total BIT scores.263.01. 1C. p<.01 and B = . p<. p<. B = . B = . indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. but not in Study 3.05 B=. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.183. but not in Study 3. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. F=3. p<.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors
Study 1B B=.438. p<. Also. p<.385.01 Study 3 B=.01. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. respectively. p<.545.01 B=.428. B = . Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
.505.565.121. p<.01 Study 1C B=. p<. p<. p<.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.540.01 and B = . p<.324. p<. p<.01 B=. N.370.01 B=.048. p<.881. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01 B=.461.520.229. p<.
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.01 B=. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.05 (see Figure 4.483. p<.01 B=.01.
645.076.172.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
42. Kurtosis=-.316.362.961. respectively. Study 1C and Study 3.05.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale.00 Low High
46. and B=-.100.01.131. The moderating effect of I was significant. for Study 1B.12. p<.516. p<.00
44.271.929. p<.01. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B=-.00 IndianMalaysian
48.297.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. R2=. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.003. In other words. p<.6. F=81. R2=.
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency
52. B=-. R2=. F=100. p<.01.01. Kurtosis=-.6.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.
015. 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=.088.360.387. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. Kurtosis=. F=91. F=71. R2=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=.794.01 and B = .
Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score
Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score
Aggression Level Figure 4.6).069.897. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.606. R2=. R2=.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.757.369. Kurtosis=. R2=. respectively).271.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.704. respectively). p<.431.109.01.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
4.297. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. p<. p<. p<.01.12.01 respectively.271. Kurtosis=-.507.01. and the moderating effects of C and P were
.6. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.117. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. R2=. In Study 1B. F=78.694. B = . F=94. p<.015.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores
Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores
Aggression Level Figure 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
However.1.332. H12. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.01 respectively.3.2. 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.
Therefore. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12.7). p<.01 and B = .302. 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. B = .significant. and H12. and the moderation effect was not significant. p<. that the internality.
01.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. p<. t(249)=2.05. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. and about revenge F(2. 249) = 5.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers.01).05). p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<.263.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.885. p<.3.
. 249) = 4. p<.343. with the sample of taxicab drivers. F(2.01. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.
4.314. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.737. H122 and H12.279. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.1. t(250) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. 248) = 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<. p<.05). Only H12.6. 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<.05.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. However. Also.
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. p<. freeway urgency. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.224. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.3. were supported.01. H13. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. This means that.6. (that thoughts about physical aggression.307.413.364. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.
Therefore. B = .1 and H13.379. was not supported. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. the higher were total BIT scores. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. B = . This means that.394. were supported. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.1.01. H14. p<. externally-focused frustration.192.3.01 and B = .01.Therefore. B = . B = . the higher the total HAT scores. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. H13. on total BIT score were also tested.
4. p<. p<.277.01. B = . respectively. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.
.01. p<. was supported. B = . H14.2 and H14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =.01 and destination-activity orientation. was partially supported. p<.2.
also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.4.911.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. F=55. F=57.297. 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=.013. R2=. p<.01.809. 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 4.565. Physical Aggression and Revenge. p<. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
. In other words. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.297.-554. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.085).01.05.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score
Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score
Aggression Level Figure 4.6.002. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=. B = .8). R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.072). R2=.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.
01. were supported.Aggression was significant.33).
. Kurtosis=. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.2. p<.207. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. F=59.294.
4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. p<.026. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.1 and H15. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01.3. B = .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. p<.297. B = .01.246. was supported.6. was not supported.092). R2=. H15. H15. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. However.475.
Therefore. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.
S 3 P.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.S N.S S N.S S S N.1.S P.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses
STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S 1C P.2.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.3.S N.S P.S
N.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.2.1.S P.S S S N.S S S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H22.214.171.124.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S P.S S N.S S S S P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1.S N.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S S S S N.2.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.S P.S S S N.S N.Table 4.S N.S N.2. S N.S
.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S N.S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S P.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2.S S S S S N.S.S S S S S N.S S N.S N.
S 1B N.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S P. blank=Not Applicable N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S P.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N.S N.S N.S N.S 2 N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S
STUDY 1C N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S N.S N.S N.S
P.S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S= Not Supported.S N.Table 4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S P.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S 3 N.S
.S S S S S S S S P.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S P.S S N.S S S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S P. N. P.S N.S S S S S P.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S S S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.
3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14. P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.S N.S N.S S N.S= Not Supported.Table 4.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S S S P.S S S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S= Partially Supported.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S
.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. 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.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S P.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S S 2 3 P.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11. N.
HAT Proximal Factors F1.96 . F2.93 . C. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Externality Chance (C). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. HAT I. P I. F4 χ2 49. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested. F3.087 .00126 . BHS. C. F3.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.1
Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control.90 110. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. F2. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.093 . F4 F1.93 . e.
Table 4. BHS. F3. HAT I.
. P. Aggression (AQ). 2002). AQ. AQ.38 100. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. F3. P.00000 .068 .97 .97 63.00000 . freeway urgency. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Hopelessness (BHS).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F2.02 d. F2.00111 .05522 . F4 F1.f. C. two were worthy of further examination. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. C. P. F2.80 104. P. Hopelessness. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.00000 .93 . C. F3 F1.060
Note: Internality (I). F4 F1. F4 F1.58 35. Study 2: motorcycle driver.7. C. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .96 RMSEA . P.102 . AQ. AQ I. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). BHS I. freeway urgency (F2).
4.045 . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).4.g.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. F3. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. F2. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. Externality Powerful-Other (P). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.34.
f.060.=24. For Model C5.13. C6.10).92) on accident involvement. For Model C6. .
. Externality (Chance).94.91. AGFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.23 respectively (see Figure 4. 5. d. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. GFI=. but not as good as for C5.
An alternate model. which are detailed in sect.3. ECVI=.02.043.42.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.045. and PGFI=.96. RMSEA=.26. d. For Model C5. Externality (Chance). with path coefficients = -. . Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.f.97. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.043.98). The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. CFI=. . . .=126.96.36.199 and PGFI=.29 and .35.42. . To aid this discussion.
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.28 and . RMR=. with path coefficients = -. For Model C6.92) on accident involvement. RMSEA=. Externality (Powerful-Other). of the BIT score. ECVI=.10).97.97.destination-activity orientation (F4).14. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. RMR=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. CFI=.
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.26. GFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).
9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.58*
.f =24 CFI=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.92*
Accident Involvement .57* Injury Occurrence
. *p<.99 P-value = .22* Hostile Automatic Thought
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.29* Aggression (AQ)
Internality -.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.97 d.32* Externality (Chance) .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.045 RMR=.
Accident Involvement .f =33 CFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
.29* Aggression (AQ)
.02 GFI=.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.05
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 P-value = .96 d.50*
. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.58* Injury Occurrence
. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.31* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context
Internality -.060 RMR=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. *p<.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=63.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
ANG.In addition.00000 GFI RMSEA . the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4. F2. IND PHY. ANG.081 . HAT-D.f. F2. Hostility (HOS).078
Note: Physical aggression (PHY). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. d. VER. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Distal Factors PHY. RMSEA=. IND. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).078.084 .00111 . HOS. IND.91 . freeway urgency (F2).
.80) on the accident involvement.41. Indirect aggression (IND).94 169. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.65 and . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. HAT-R PHY.f. F2. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.080 . The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HAT-P. HAT-D. F3. Verbal aggression (VER). HAT-P.00000 .13 respectively. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).95).10. Angry (ANG). HOS. 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). F3 F1. ANG. HAT-R PHY. HAT-P. F3.91 . HAT-P.92 . HAT-R PHY.66). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.93 . HOS.66 131.41 d. HAT-D. Aggression (AQ). HAT-D.73 169. HOS. F4 F1.91 .084 .00000 .00000 .66 153. F4 F1.=61. ANG. IND.91. IND. F3. F3 F1. path coefficients = . VER. ANG. VER. F4 χ2 108.35). F2. GFI=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F2. HOS. CFI=. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.
078 RMR=.69* Anger .83*
.95 P-value = .65* .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought
. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.29*
Physical Aggression . *p<.62*
.000 N=252 RMSEA=.65*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.72* .63* Indirect Aggression .Distal Context
Physical Aggression .61*
. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.66* .05
.41 GFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.80*
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13*
χ2=153.91 d.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
.68* Aggression (AQ)
.f =61 CFI=.
P I. the participants were motorcycle drivers. C. F2.80 respectively (see Figure 4. C.7.06722
Note: Internality (I).
. The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. 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. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).94. d. F3. CFI=. GFI=.058 .17631 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.66) on the accident involvement.86
23 28 23
. BHS I.=28.2
Study 2 In Study 2.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4.07580 . F4 F1.4.047 .12. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F4
39. path coefficients = -.94
.33 33.65 and . freeway urgency (F2). F3. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F3 F1. BHS
F1. C.f.047.f. P. Hopelessness (BHS). P.95 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. Externality Chance (C). RMSEA=. F2.36). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Externality Powerful-Other (P).12). p-value GFI RMSEA
I. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.98).12 d.94 .
95 d.f =23 CFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.83*
. *p<.65* Externality (Chance)
Internality -.047 RMR=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
χ2=29. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.70*
BIT4 .12 GFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.66*
Externality (Powerful Other)
BIT2 .99 P-value = .88*
Crash Occurrence .80*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
95. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. P Proximal Factors F1. 37. P. F2.95). F2. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). C.06743 .3
Study 3 In Study 3. path coefficients = -.00524 . F3. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).03084 .f.061. CFI=. AQ F1.59 17 .068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence.95 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.4. F4 50. F2. AQ F1.13). AQ F1.20 respectively (see Figure 4.027 I. freeway urgency (F2).20 and . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Model included locus of control. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.=21.7. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F3. RMSEA=. C.22 23 . F4 Outcomes χ2 d. but not Externality. C. Internality and AQ.35265 .97 .
.82 28 . F3.40) on the accident involvement. p-value GFI RMSEA
Crash Occurrence.f.061 Note: Internality (I). F4 Crash Occurrence 31. the participants were taxi drivers. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.39 21 . F2.39.079 Injury Occurrence I.94 . Hopelessness (H). d. C. Externality Chance (ExC). GFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. I. The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.93 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. P.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Distal Factors I. F3.37).
χ2=31. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.f =21 CFI=.13
.95 P-value = .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. *p<.40*
Externality (Powerful Other)
BIT3 .39 GFI=.03
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.061 RMR=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39*
BIT4 .20* Externality (Chance)
BIT2 .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.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.1
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.38). Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.8.2
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the
relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.8
Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
accident involvement.39). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Therefore.8.
4. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). 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. consistent with path analysis results.4. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.
4. hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. and.
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.
Table 4.8. where the
. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. 1B and 1C.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40). in Studies 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.
Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator
4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable
Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 1B vs.9. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
4. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.01. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.05.426. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -4.9
Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1A vs.01.837. p <. scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness). p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 1C vs.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued)
BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable
4. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8. p <.162.01. Study 2: t(422)= -2. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2.665. Study 2: t(372)= 8.01.Table 4.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.1
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. Study 1A vs. p <.
01.01.01. and t(986)= 35.
.577. p <.01.861. Study 1C vs.747.
4. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <.01.01. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs.484. p <. p <.01. p <. p <. and to injury occurrence.402.186.01. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(253)= 8. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 1B vs.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.433.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Study 2: t(372)= -5. respectively. p <.261.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.01. Study 1C vs.2
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. t(253) = 2. p <.3
Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
dimension. t(986)= 37. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.977. Study 2: t(372)= -6.211. t(986)= 3.837. p <. t(986)= 6.775. p <.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.
4.704. p <.801. Also.200.01.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. Study 2: t(372)= -7. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(986)= 5.9. t(986)= 30.687.926. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
orientation”.614. p <.01.01.9. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <. p <.01.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. p <. “freeway urgency”. t(986)= 7. t(986)= 34. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6. Study 1A vs.
t(253)= 11. p <.016. Also.01.982. p <. “freeway urgency”.01. t(253)= 8.01and to injury occurrence. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 31. t(253)= 8.01.
. p <. p <.946.01. respectively. t(253)= 35.01.737.977. p <. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.01. and t(253)= 37. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.881.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.567. p <.
1995. Evans. (1993). ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. freeway urgency. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. 2002b). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 1991). They found gender. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).4. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Often. 1993. Elander et al. including gender. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger.CHAPTER 5
In an earlier study.1). in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.1
A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. al. 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. multi-factorial perspective.
Elander et. upon examination. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. 2.
This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. In the contextual mediated model. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. 1991). the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example.
But findings were more complex than that. except with taxicab drivers. In other words. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. As a result. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. hopelessness.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes.total BIT score and component scores. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. BIT. the proximal variable. Further.
In the present research. All too often.
. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. though. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. is that factors interact with each other. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. if different.
… 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
In the present study. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Because of occupational demands. For taxicab drivers. SD=11.2 years. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. Malaysian-Indian automobile
.hierarchy.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. By virtue of their age and occupation.16. SD=1. SD=131.
For taxicab drivers.53. respectively). SD=.6 months as licensed drivers. as well.1 months.3. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.
5. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.7 months. Of course. 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.63. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.5. Inclán. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. respectively). Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.01years. and 36.2
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.1. SD=22. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. there are other possible influences. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. They were also more experienced (266. SD=1. 20.25 years. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.
corrupt practices. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. financial matters and social affiliations are made. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. Devashayam.
Carment (1974) also found.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. influence peddling and status-related privileges. along with selfpromotion skills. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. when compared to Canadian students. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. spousal selection. The finding that Indian-
. perhaps due as argued earlier. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. 2003.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). were necessary to succeed.
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. rife with bureaucracy. 2005). it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. In an environment where career choice. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. however.
and.7 in 1996. 2002. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Salih &Young. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. an internal locus of control. 1981). than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. Sendut. Nandy. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4.3
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.
Again. where Cheung et al. 1966.3. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Gomez. as a result.5% annually from 9. 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. 1999. 1999). Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
. 1998. as a group. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. including locus of control.5 million in 1991 to 11.8 million in 1996. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Indeed. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. but two possible influences stand out.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India.
5. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. by extension.
with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. Miller & Rodgers. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2008. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. King & Parker. 318). Miles & Johnson. 2001)
In the present research. bringing them closer together in outlook. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
. Lynch.women’s friendship patterns. 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. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2003. 2002). Nonetheless. Consistently.
5. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2001. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2002.4
Aggression Haight (2004) has suggested that the concept of the accident-prone driver may
have been replaced in the 1990s by that of the alcohol-impaired driver and. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Jenkins. Huff. Oetting & Salvatore. Clayton. 2000. Parkinson. more recently. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. by the enraged driver. Lawton & Nutter. Dukes.
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.
on a journey by journey basis. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. physical aggression. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic.conditions. (1996) and Deffenbacher. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Petrilli et al. Finland and the Netherlands. With taxicab drivers. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving.
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Underwood et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. Parker. during such incidents. Further. 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”).
Underwood et al. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Oetting et al. 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. Deffenbacher.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
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. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour.. Such responses. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. 1997). and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. in the samples studied here. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. although still significantly. as well.. the world and others).
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.strongly. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control.
The effects of aggression on behaviour. but not when they involved the derogation of others. 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
. In essence. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. 2006). when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. however. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. That is.
1995. (2003). Novaco. Hochschild. Downe & Loke. “in ergonomics. in the form of hostile automatic
thoughts. 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.. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 1990..
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1979. 2004. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. but there may be more to it than that. 1977).e. 1994. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). Meichenbaum. 1987. like any other mental task. and particularly with negative emotion. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. Language loaded with emotional content.e.
. p. Certainly.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. true to operant learning principles. 401). Generally. Finally. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out.
Similarly. 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.are determined by chance or fate. It is moderated by cognitive processes. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. or self-talk.
(e. hostile automatic thoughts. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. 1996. Martin. p. Mercado & Tapia. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 2005). and attempting to exercise control over.
5.. Watson & Wan. Making sense of. 2004.5
Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
5. 1993). aggressive emotionality. 162). 1999.g. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.1
Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. In fact. Tomkins. 2002. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 1997). so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Lambie & Marcel. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Carretie. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Stein. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. MartinLoeches. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Taylor & Fragopanagos. Trabasso & Liwag. 2000. Hinojosa. 2000. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 2002. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic.5.Robbins.
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Dien.
advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. 2006). including dependent and independent variables. involved in the analysis. Structural equation modelling (SEM). explain criterion.. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. 2006). Finally. or independent variables. First. 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.434). Gavin and Hartman (2004). In addition.
According to Williams.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. By estimating and removing measurement error. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. or latent. 2006). When composing a model.
. 1998). or dependent. who in 1970. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. 2004. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al.. factors represented by multiple variables. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. 2000). Karl Jöreskog. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. and perhaps most important. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. a multivariate technique. 2004. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. Second. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. p. Hair et al. EQS and AMOS..
(2004) noted that. SRMR. GFI.2
Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory. 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. (2006). It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models.e. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. Williams et al. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired.
Hair et al. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al.e. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. when assessing the fits of measurement models.5.
. In the present research. Ketchen. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. TLI. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Sümer (2003) added that. CFI. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices.5. the comparative fit index (CFI). Therefore. (2004) has been critical of most studies. as suggested by Hair et al. Shook et al. and the root mean square residual were included. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. 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.
GFI. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. As a general rule. CFI and CFI) greater than .5. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Sambasivan & Ismail. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2001. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. 1998). so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al.
At the same time. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 1998. Hair et al. Maruyama. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. 2000). we would argue. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models.90.In the present research. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006. 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. Structural equation modelling should.
It is argued here that. 2001..g. 2006).. RMSEA lower than . significant p-values can be expected. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 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. CFI. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative.
5. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. be a process that balances utility with statistical
.. Fit index values (e.
Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. 158). More importantly.10) excluded the fourth factor. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. In some cases. However. and practical considerations (p. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.3).soundness. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit.
There is some support for this position in the literature. 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. “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. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. as suggested by Byrne (2001).7. statistical.1. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. two structural equation models. Thus. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.
In the case at hand.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. 1C5 and 1C6. stating that.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. destination-activity orientation. 88). the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. 4.
P.97 0.91 0.043 129.97 1.98 0. C.97 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. AQ.
. F2. Injury Occurrence 35.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. 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.42 11. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.02 0. F2.97 0.02 0. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.99 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.045 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.909 0.
Fit Statistics (Threshold values)
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.Table 5.39 Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.96 1. C. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.48 30. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. P.96 0.97 0.034 97.94 0.499 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. AQ. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.060 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.02 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.
the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. 1990. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. For practical reasons.48.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Nahn & Shapiro. farther along. based on the notion that each variable included may. Parker. goodness-of-fit.
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. while for Model 1C6. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. By selecting Model 1C5.
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. Hair et al. Schwebel. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. it is 0. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. et al. Storey.
. Manstead & Stradling. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. they should be dropped. Kayumov.42. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. 2006). in particular. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.. in this analysis. but still acceptable. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. However. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. 2006. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. 1995. Reason. 1996).1).
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.35. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.21). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.1). 1991. via BIT. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
. with five distal factors (internality. The results suggested that the alternative model.4
Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
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. aggression. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . externality-powerful other.35 and .18) and injury occurrence (r = -. freeway urgency. Evans. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. . externality-powerful other.66). . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. 2003). In Study 1C. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .g.5. and hostile automatic thoughts). 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. 2001. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.29). externality-chance. on crash outcomes. externalitychance. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.4. crash occurrence (r = -. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.6.26. .14. Sümer.5. Rothengatter.28 respectively).34) and injury occurrence (r = .5. for automobile drivers sampled.45). indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.28 and . externally-focused frustration. 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.4. crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.25). The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. externality-chance. had a better fit than other alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable.
5.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.24). Results indicated that the first alternative model.
. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .41).5. Aggression.23) and injury occurrence (r = .55). Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration. which sampled motorcyclists. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. on the other hand. crash occurrence (r = . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = .65 and .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.20) and injury occurrence (r = .
on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. their crash occurrence. 4. had a better fit than alternative models. to measure outcome. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. Distal
factors. freeway urgency.5
What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. with four distal factors (internality. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. externality-chance.
.3). Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. hopelessness. via BIT. and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. 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. with the sample of taxicab drivers. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. crash occurrence. as a result. such as internality. externality-chance. externally-focused frustration. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. freeway urgency.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.6. crash occurrence. For motorcyclists.
5. Finally. externally-focused frustration. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. for crash outcomes. However. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. for the sample of taxicab drivers. aggression).5.5.20 and .4. Results indicated that the third alternative model. had no significant effect on BIT scores.5. externality-powerful other. externality-powerful other and aggression). in turn and indirectly. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.
chosen at random from taxi stands.1
Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to
be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample.
An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be
answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
Sekaran (2003) points out. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp.
In the present research. 2005).6. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. 2005. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. a total of five samples were taken. To a large extent. 2004). Huguenin. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 278279). Further. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.
.6 5. however.
With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Study 1B: 100%.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.13 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 20.31. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Sabah. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.55).2% and Study 2: 99. The most populous state.
. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Selangor. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident.2%).6%. 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. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.2).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.6% (Study 1A: 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. as elsewhere. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.
Table 5. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Since. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. in Malaysia. Study 1C: 99.In Malaysia.
9 9.2 3. In both cases.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. 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.387.3 (12) 11.6 (10) 7.Table 5.300.2 (13) 11.396.2 (1) 3.000 2.000 2.500.4 5.0 12.807 733.0 8.6 5.674 1.2 11. Not all states have the same number of drivers.100.5 (8) 3.2 7.8 6.000 Per cent of national population 26.6 2.8 (6) 6.286 1.6 6.188 1.000 1.503. For that reason.500 1. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.9 (3) 2.
Table 5.7 (14)
But. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.000 3.7 (2) 2.150.0 4.5 (4) 4.260.818. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.2 (5) 0.9 (9) 7.200.
. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.2 (11) 12.004. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.6 0.576 2.000 215.1 (7) 8. in this case.000 1.887.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.880 3.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17. Table 5.
588.768 6.251 324.561 1.88 2.137 698.46 8.19 7.43 2.467 25.22 17.606 24.20
12.428.774 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
12.064 9.28 3.16 2.85 1.198 156.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.93 9.600 135.24 0.490 525.88 3.34 3.785 393.735 165.212 39.55 7.45 9.50 29.34 11.617 10.635 1.70 3.24 2.19 3.026 10.104 6.84 11.76 3.920 181.13 6.170 13.96 3.91 2.003 10.35 4.68 7.496 187.029 273.4 4.63
.19 4.93 0.144 12.89 3.041 92.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.725 70.92 25.36 8.75 4.37 3.98 0.Table 5.27 14.093 5.230 266.90 5.05 2.163 10.97 12.
88 3.38 4.93 7.Table 5.02 7.59 1.22 3.283 770.43 2.615.305 276.93 9.989 6.64 1.722 255.46 14.27 14.561 1.725 70.15 5.03 4.064 9.958
Participants’ State of Origin (by license 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122
Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
12.656 821.49 12.221 36.4 4.727 161.170 13.029 273.88 2.48 1.28 3.992 776.026 10.92 25.02 10.79 13.33 4.82 9.10 9.46 5.104 6.606 24.20
15.003 10.75 5.45 2.212 39.679 90.995 233.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.63 11.74
.617 10.98 0.64 2.144 12.288 444.38 0.37 3.66 11.768 6.856 310.133 705.63
13.36 8.112 347.59 12.76 3.35 4.467 25.49 0.14 7.496
Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.
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. At least on these dimensions. it is possible to say that sampling. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin
1 2 3
1 .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.814**
1 . at least.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. was representative of a high risk driver population. participants came from – or. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
. There is a high correlation between ranks of the states from which participants in Studies 1 and 2 received their licenses and the ranks of states with regard to crash occurrence and to private vehicle registrations.903** . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.4.3 and 5. it can be argued that they were.Table 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .824** .
Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002). We can also get rough data of exposure by age. Keskinen. However.
accidents.6. None of these
variables can be substituted by group means. as in other psychological research. 1998. 2001). 296). social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken.
5. The problem. 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. 1998. Much important data is available in official statistics. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. in studying driving behaviour.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. Rothengatter. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. attitudinal factors.g. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. demographic factors.. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. e. however. Hatakka.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Elander et al. violations and accidents should be linked together. 1979). accident distributions by age. Exposure. unless the variation within the group is very small. Again. the data has to be disaggregated.
In the present research. Particularly. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. as in a study reported by Chalmé. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus.6. 1996). that the score that one receives on a measure of personality or behavioural orientation today was the same some time ago when a crash occurred is often tenuous. In future studies. The assumption. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. for instance. 13). inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. Visser and Denis (2004).
. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. therefore. the longer the time period for data collection. though..
5. Yet. as well. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. blood pressure.g..3
Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. combined interview and observational methods. the more information is lost through memory lapses. in studies of driving behaviour. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. 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. 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. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and.g. muscle tension.
Unfortunately. First.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval.
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. and the hypothesis (H2. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. 1999). Second. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 1971).4
Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. Participants indicated on a 6-point Likert type scale how often they travelled as a driver and as a passenger both in automobiles and on motorcycles. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. Mercer.6. as well.
5. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1997. The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. 2002).In the present research. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. individual standard.
but not always.
In much the same way. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. but because they are inherently easier to think about.
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. 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. Specifically. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 181). eventful or recent. 2003).frequency that were used in this research. because they have taken place recently. p. 1993). Kahneman. Often. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 1974). 2003. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. in other words. 1993.. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. this
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. although this has not been firmly established.
. 2004). But. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 1982). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 1973. “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. Wood & Boyd. 2002). 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. frequency or distribution in the world (p. 121). 2008). Slovic & Tversky.
in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. on one hand. in their studies of roadway aggression. where driving histories generally include lengthy.
Of course. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 2000). which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. for example. road conditions. Sansone. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. 1991).
Finally. 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. 2001) .In the Malaysian environment. (2003). 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. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions.
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. during periods of low traffic volume. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund.
Deffenbacher et al. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. Similarly. but training participants in standardised record-keeping.. asked participants to record the time of day.
Good theories are simple.7. In the present research. 2005).
To summarise. selfreported measure used here. 2005). collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature. 2004).7 5. 2004).1
Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. Michon. 1994). during the study design process. 1997). but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 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. 1991). have high information content. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser.. 1985.
Further research is required. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 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.studies undertaken. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
. Ranney. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.
In addition. 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. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. over-arching theory (Rothengatter.
5. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. Summala. are testable and contain no contradictions. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. 2002. It was felt. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified.g.
The answer to this question is possibly yes. if they are modest in ambition. 1997. The answer is probably not. or represent processes. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. 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”. 294). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. 32). The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. check facts. p.
Hauer (1987). the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. on the other hand. 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. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. often in graphical form (Grayson. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Grayson (1997) agreed. stating that. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
Throughout the development of traffic psychology.patterns of relationships. in particular to structure data. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. at times. 94). create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose.
The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. In this case. In
. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour.3). In the present research. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. 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. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 2. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. and if they are resultscentred (pp. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. 304). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. hopelessness. for instance. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma.
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). who argued that. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 95-96).entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. Yet. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress.
Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist
are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA). lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. conscientiousness. The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving. According to Ranney (1994). 2. as defined by Grayson (1997). much current research. 2005) were included as distal variables. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. sensation seeking (Sümer. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. not on everyday driving.4). depression.. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. extraversion. 2003).other studies. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. anxiety. The contextual mediated framework.3. crash-free driving. while still very much a model and not a theory.
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. psychoticism. Kerlinger (2000) and others.7. openness. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. While the present research
5. With several exceptions.
some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. On the other hand. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. Conversely. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. As a result.
Within their proposed conceptual framework.did not test any of those theories specifically.
. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. 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. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. 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. They argued that locus of control. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. no matter how reliable a safety device. or at least to react more slowly.
Following this reasoning. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner.
. 1982). can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted..In the present research. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Gidron & Davidson. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa.
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality.3
Driver Selection. 1997. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. Typically. Christ et al. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. task capability (Fuller.
5. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 2004). 2002. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.7. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. could be screened out. though. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. once identified. scarce resources for screening drivers. 1996). Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. al. 2005. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Specifically. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde.
1957). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.7. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.
5. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.
At the same time. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. 1961. From this has emerged the growing
. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.
Slinn.4).7. World Health Organisation.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. education. Unlike 100 years ago.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).4
Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1957. teams of humans. or legal intervention. for the last fifty years. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1).4.5.7. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.
operator workload and performance (Inagaki. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Suda & Ono.
. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. Murazami. or the adaptive automation concept. for instance. 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. 2005). At the same time. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. Sadano.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way.6). 2001). These have been applied to in-car. 2001). (Bishop.6). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. In the case of LKA.
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA).application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. 2003). Stough.
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. depending on environmental factors. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. Maggio & Jin.
was associated crash outcomes. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Ulrich. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. in particular to pursue environmental. Fountaine and Knotts. 1999. 2000).with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5.6). Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. 1993. changes in traffic speed.
The present research also found that freeway urgency. traffic
. 1997). 2003. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 1998). in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. 2004. Tassinary. Richardson & Downe. 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. Herzog.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. Black. Brown & Noy. Parsons.
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. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. Engineering
interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. 1992). This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. Dietze. Proctor.
Probably. and whether this information varies according to the situation. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic.
. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 1996. 1991). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). inexperienced drivers. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. journey purpose or other human factors.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. p. however. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. 309). 1996. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. however. questions of alternative urban structure.
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches.
traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. “rumble strips” in expressways. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. 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. 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. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.Table 5. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. lane road conditions. transitions for.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding
Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.1.
H 1. departure warning. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. reversible corrections through a motorlanes.
. and likelihood of. keeping. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. infrastructure. – 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.1
lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations.
adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.
. the host vehicle.
H 1. generally pilot”.(continued)
H 1.. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. point.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.1. including those in adjoining lanes. to in-vehicle display terminals. ACC systems provide modifications. 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. 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”. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. than the safety standard. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap.1
Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Radar. are travelling. the systems intersection modification.2
lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. traffic lights) safe. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications.
at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. environment and other frustrating stimuli. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. “Speed tables”.(continued)
Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. Such devices include chicanes.1. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways.
. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.
H 1. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. signs with calming or vehicles.3
vertical displacement. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity.
. weather-related road conditions. H 1. safety messages. notification of construction ahead.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. at least. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. This information allows drivers to avoid or.(continued)
electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.1.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.
4. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). 2001). They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education.5. It suggests that. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic.7. however. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries.
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. like community centres or places of worship. to some extent. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. 73). to inadequacies in driver training and testing.
. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. teachers or the police. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. The present research suggests that. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored.
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. legal measures change least often. They also stated. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. however. or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. 1030).
First. 2007. 265).4. p.
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. such as visibility of enforcement. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. was studied in a
. N6). evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. or an internal locus of control. that “Of these three
approaches.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. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. p. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications.7. The bias of false consensus. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. from the findings of the present research.5. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 1978. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors.
sample of drivers by Manstead. 498). Reason & Baxter. Stradling. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 1991. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws.” 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. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. is allowed to occur in a Just World. By doing so. Azjen & Fishbein.
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
. 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). on the other. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. after all. 2001. drivers create a sense of belionging to a majority group and therefore negate the possibility that they are behaving in a socially deviant manner (p. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 1992). Parker. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB.
to traffic regulations.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. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.
. 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).
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. 2002. hopelessness.
. age.. locus of control. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. as expected.g. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes.. Wállen Warner & Åberg. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. as proximal to the crash outcomes. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. 2003. Iverson & Rundmo. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner.
A contextual mediated model. ethnicity. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern.CHAPTER 6
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential.
In doing so. Sümer. In the present research. when risky. Sümer et al. Results have indicated that. gender. it was concluded that driver experience. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e.
that when faced with competing models in safety studies. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. Some inter-ethnic differences in
. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. task capability (Fuller. Harrell. 1974).g. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. However. 1982). The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. In the present research. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. as well as statistical grounds. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 1995.
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. This is
Of the variables studied. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello.In the current literature. or external locus of control. and accident risk (e. 1973). like Brown and Noy (2004). 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. Further. 2003).. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. it is argued here. 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. 1986. the best fit usually implies the best model. Hoyt. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. In most cases.. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 1987). the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. Montag & Comrey.
it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. However.aggression were observed.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Rothengatter. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. Groeger & Rothengatter. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). road engineering and ergonomics. 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. It is argued that this is a
In interpreting these effects. in combination. as well. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. 2005. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. Several authors (e. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. 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. Huguenin. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions.. they
. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. cultural anthropology. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. 1998. For example.g.
In the present research. Indeed. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design.
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. educational and enforcement spheres. 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).form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere. injuries and death. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 313).
. findings with regard to four
components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. management.
Journal of Safety Research. R. 12. Drinking and driving: intention.E. (2003). Third edition. L.. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. T. 38(5). S. (2003).E. and Anurag.. 25.A.
af Wählberg. A. A.. MY: Pearson. Psychological Testing and Assessment. R. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Subramaniam. and Law. N.R. H. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya. L. (2005). M. 35. H. and Kulanthayan. 5.
Adolphs.S. (1979). P. (1999).
. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1993).
Aiken.H. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. Mohd Nasir. Musa. M. 1867-1874. P.
Abdul Rahman. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Bahrain. 581-587. (2002). Crash data analysis: collective vs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.T. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. 289-296. A. (2002).. and Pederson.
af Wählberg. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.H. 10(2). Neural systems for recognizing emotion.REFERENCES
Abdul Kareem. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). Mohd Zulkifli. Accident Analysis and Prevention. K. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies.
Abdullah. Puzzles & Irritations. 31-39. (2003). Radin Umar. A. individual crash level approach. 473-486.B.
Åberg. (2007). 169-177.
B. A. In Kuhl. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. Women’s Studies International Forum.
Ajzen. Annual Review of Psychology. 50(2). and Christian.D. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. 187-195. 52. 33(3). (2001).
Ajzen.G. Day. Bell. 404-415. gender and early morning accidents. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. (1985). I. W. I.
Armitage. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. In Stroebe. 47. (2001). Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. and Fishbein. Learning. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. A. Human Factors. J. S. S. Journal of Sleep Research. Tubré. Aggressive Behavior. (2004). From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.H.. 10. and Tubré. T.
Arbous. 179-211.J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. M. and Beckmann. E. Biometrics. Edwards.
Armstrong. 22(3). I. Nature and operation of attitudes. C. and Kerrich. The theory of planned behaviour.
Arthur. M.. J. 27-58. (1991).. I. 340-342.
. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. London: John Wiley & Sons.C.
Archer. and Haigh.105-110. (1987). and Kecklund (2001). Current Psychology: Developmental. 23. 623-633. M. 10(6). (Eds. (1997). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. J.) European Review of Social Psychology. J.A. (2005).T. and Hewston.E. Social.
Åkerstedt. (1952). T. 291-307. 7.J.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Age. (Eds.
Amin. A. (2003).
Ajzen. Personality. 303-313. W.
M. (Eds.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 2007 from http://www. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual.A. When hope becomes hopelessness.
Barjonet.-E. Manila: Philippines.
Baron. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Barrett. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R.M. 89-105.S. and Alexander. and Carson. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis.
Barjonet.. (Eds. and Dischinger. G. GJ. and Tortosa.31-42. K.
Aylott. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. F. 231-234. (2005. P..A. (1994). Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. 4(2).) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 14-29).
Bakri Musa. (1986). W. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 279-284. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. In Trimpop. 51(6).
Asian Development Bank (2005). S. Wilde. (2001). 2(4). F. and Tortosa. J.L. 34. (1998). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.
. R. (Ed. M. Retrieved April 4. (2002).M.-E. M.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.
Arthur. Human Performance. strategic and statistical considerations.bakrimusa. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). P.
Austin. October 18). R. (2002). An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. and Biehl. Groningen. Boston: Kluwer. R. In Barjonet. 34. P. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.D. In Rothengatter. 1173-1182. P-E.
Ballesteros. NL: Styx. and Carbonell Vaya E. 21-30).V. (1991). T.
Aschenbrenner. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. (1997).F. and Kenny.C.. B.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
Theory: the necessary evil. 29(1).T.
Bentler. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. In (Flinders...
Beck. R. A. E.. Cognitive therapy. 234(11). A. 149-178). New York: Perennial Harper Collins. Health Education and Behavior. (1975). 88. 218-229).T. Journal of the American Medical Association.F. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.T. Hartos. (1976). and Loftus. and Berg. New York: Meridian. and Simons-Morton (2002). and Steer. (1987b). The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. E.T. (pp. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. M. A. G. New York: Brunner/Mazel. and Weissman. 19.
Beck. A.M. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. (1980). (1987a). hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. and Mills. L. A. In Rubin.
Beck. 588-606. 157-179).A.
Beck. J. A. (Ed.T. K.G. D. and Bonnett. H. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Hostility and Violence.
Beck.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field.H.T.
Beck. D. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. (1996). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. The level of and relation between hope. Psychological Bulletin..G. Palliative Medicine. 1(1). and Trexler. (1993). A. Weissman.S. D. J. (1999). The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. 42
Becker. A.C. A. D.
Benzein.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. (1993)..) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. 1146-1149. 5-37. (Eds. (1974). P. New York: Teachers College Press. A. 73-84.C.J.
Belli. 234-240.T. New York: Cambridge University Press.K. (2005). Kovacs. (Ed.
. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Lester.E. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. R. Cognitive models of depression.
Beck. In Zeig.F.
Ben-Zur. M. 38(3). H. Psychology and road safety. 44-51. Applied Ergonomics.php?id=185148. R.D.
Bettencourt. Graziano.com..A. and Haney. T. Retrieved March 30. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. McKee. 15(1). B. Talley. and Geller. F. (2006).
Blumenthal. (1981). Anxiety.bernama. (1995). E. 43. Journal of Personality Assessment. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.
Bina. Malaysian National News Agency. 2007 from http://www. F. A. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Benjamin. Introduction to Ergonomics. 391-399. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. 53. K. (2002).. M. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 472-481
Bernama. A. 37.
Boyce. T. Accident analysis and Prevention. New York: McGraw Hill. 39-55. March 12). Applied Psychology: An International Review. 313-322. S. Psychological Bulletin.C. J.
Blacker. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics..J.S.
Bridger. Managing the high costs of road deaths.S. 95-104. (2001).my/bernama/v3/printable. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity.
Blasco. 37-40.. D. (1994). and Shimmin. 751-777. Stress and Coping. 132(5). and Valentine. R. 45(1).. 34(1). R. (1984). (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.A. New York: Routledge. and Bonino.B. J. (2006. (2006). Williams.
W. (1995). T. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T. E. 345-352.E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.D.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. In Rothengatter. 318-330. In Rothengatter. M. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. R. W. observational data and driver records. 14. I. D.E. R. T..S. and Carbonell Vaya. and Huguenin.
Bunnell. 21. Political Geography. Ergonomics.M. Haliburton. G. International Journal of Educational Development. N. 4(4).
Brindle. (1992). Schlundt. R.
Brown. (Eds. and Wilde. 20-23. I.
Brown. (2007). (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.
Burns.C.J. 32(1). Journal of Applied Psychology.G.K. and Noy. 219-241. E. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. (1982). 29-38
Brodsky. I. (2000). and Cudeck. 27(3). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. G. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.
Brown. and Ghiselli. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (2005). P.D. W.. R. 9-19).S. 267-278. I.
Brown. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.
Brown. Multivariate Behavioral Research. Goldzweig. C. 24.C.. and Warren.W. (1948). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Levine. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. 37(4).C. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. (1997). (2004). (1989). 445-455.. 105-124. R. 24(1). (2002). 641-649.P. 18(2). Personality and Individual Differences.
(1999). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.F. Ergonomics. J. (1998). 31.
Carmines... (1981). J. A. J. B. (2003). and Tapia.. & Santos.
Cackowski. (2000). O.. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Applications and Programming. L. G. 15981613. L. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. Human Brain Mapping.G. Multiple perspectives. 9. (2002). Journal of Consulting Psychology. and Kline.
Buss. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. 22. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.
Byrd. B.A. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.. A. M.W.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. and Warren. and Nasar.
Carretie. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Applications and Programming.M. In Bohrnstedt. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. J. T. Mercado. 63-65. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire.
Carsten. 736-751. 290-299. F. E. (Eds.
Carment. 45-50.D. (2001). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. (Eds). Parada.W. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. R. (1974). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. International Journal of Psychology. Environment and Behaviour.. (1957).J. E. M.
Caird. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. (2004). Oxford: Elsevier Science. (2004). T.K. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. M.
.H.A. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.H.L.
Byrne.P.L. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. E. and Cortes. 21. 47(15).
Buss. Cohn. and Borgatta. D. W. Martin-Loeches. and Durkee. Gonzalez. 343-349. J. J. 65-115). Hinojosa. and McIver. In Fuller. 35(6).
-H. New York: Dell. and Huguenin. What are we allowed to ask. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. Campo Grande. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Personality and Individual Difference. Retrieved March 31. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. November 12). Monash University. Driving: through the eyes of teens. and Lim.
Cheah. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age.0. 467-477. 557-562. S.M. March 20-22.
Carver. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour..F.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. (2000). Y. 61-71). F. Retrieved October 15. H.
Cheung. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. W.org/workshops/05CampoGrande
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). 41. (1985)..
Chang.P. Dictionary of Psychology. 2007 from http:www. Brazil.D.. (1996). (2007). (2007. Visser. Taiwan.
Chaplin. N6. J. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.G.W. Matto Grosso do Sul. (2004). M. and Denis. The Star. S. In Rothengatter. D. (2006). J. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Howard. T. November).pdf
. 21(4).-L. T. Cheung. and Nash. 2008 from http://www. Sunway Campus.H.
Chalmé. Kuala Lumpur. 109-122.ictct. 10(2). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Malaysia. R.ghipr. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. R. and Yeh. (Eds.-H. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.
Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.
R. Helmets.D. N. 22(3). A.T.. Panosch. P.K. Koumaki. 28(2). Ward. Smiley. S. P. M. (Eds. R. A. Towner. 196-203. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.makeroadssafe.
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006.. J. C. E. (2007). and Stiles. Cairns.
Christ. D. In Rothengatter. (2002). P. T. and Ward. Journal of Safety Research. M. and Truman.S.
Clarke. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. 38(6). 974-981. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Ed. (2005). Y. Bartle. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. )2007). and Darviri. P.. Accident Analysis & Prevention.. 679-684.G. Kasniyah. Personality traits and the development of depression. B. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. 33. N. MacGregor.. S. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. and Chan. and Bukasa.
Christie.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. hopelessness and suicide ideation. and Huguenin. 193-200. 24(2). 431-443. Cancer Nursing. (1996). French. 13(2). (1999). V.pdf
Conrad.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Personality and Individual Differences. Retrieved December 7.. M. Safety at work. and Costello. T. N... W. Amsterdam: Elsevier.C. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.. 255-274). G. In Chmiel. H. 377-390).D. London: Wiley-Blackwell.. 125-129. (1992)..’ Injury Prevention. Lamsudin. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.
.P. C.. 1283-1289.
Chioqueta. C. June). C.M.
Chipman.. (2000). Bradshaw.
Chmiel.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.E. (2004). 39. N. Tzamalouka.. Demakakos. and Lee-Gosselin. Time vs. 2007 from http://www.L. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes.
com. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. and Santos. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. (2002). The Star. 45-62. and van Koppen.D.
de Waard. H. and Huguenin.R.A. (Eds. R. P.F.S. 5(1). D. (2006. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 263. T. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. (2005). G. In Fuller.my/permalink.
Davin Arul (2005.M. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.A. N48
de Raedt.W. Journal of Personality Assessment. 16(5). 98-117. 20(5). R. (1991). Retrieved April 5. and Patel. W. Wagenaar.J. W. Legal and Criminological Psychology. p.thestar. 95-104. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. P. (1962). and Froggatt. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. (1996). Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. J. 10. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.M.
Cresswell. February 8). Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society.
Cowardly Malaysian drivers.asp?id-7003.
Davies. L. 152-171. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). and McRae. Applied Cognitive Psychology.L.. Mental workload. R. October 18).
Costa. 2007 from http://blog. In Rothengatter.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. N. Accident proneness. F. K. 64. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. P. D. 10.
Crittendon. and Durso. 161-175). [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. 21-50. (1961). (1995). American Psychologist.
(Eds. Ergonomics. R. Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Deffenbacher... Lynch. Individual differences. S. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making.R. K. and Carbonell Vaya.
Deffenbacher.L. 47. Oetting. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.
Dien. (1996). (2002b). 373-393.S. 123132.L. and Morris.S. Behaviour Research and Therapy. T.F.R. 383-402. J.
Deffenbacher. 28. (Eds. P. R. Lynch. and Swaim.D.C. and Ameratunga. Tucson. S. 41. The expression of anger and its consequences.. M. In Rothengatter. Personality and Individual Differences. R. (1999). Cognitive Therapy and Research..
.E. 26(1). Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. 27(4). P. R. and Oetting. (1997). J.D.
Dewar.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 161-171). (2003).N. D. E. and Meyer. R. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Oetting.
Delhomme. (2005).L. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.L. and Olson. Age differences – drivers old and young.E. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. (2004).A. 5-17. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.. and Salvatore. (1998).. 209-233).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. In Dewar. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. J. E. (Eds. Huff. In Dewar. On the measurement of driver mental workload. T. 50(2). (2002a).S. 333-356.R.L.R. and Olson.. R. Richards. P..
Dewar. E. E. C..W. 34. Petrilli. R. N. 14(12). 111-142). Lynch. Lynch. (2003). Oetting. and Brookhuis. R.
de Waard.E. E. 729-730. Filetti. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. J.T. R. L.
Devashayam. 575-590.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.B. Journal of Counseling Psychology. T. 1-20. E. E. Tucson. T. Women’s Studies International Forum. R.L. (2000).
M. N. Women drivers’ behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85-92).. 323-331. In Khalid. 278-285)..
Downe.. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.
Draskóczy. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.
. Lim.G. and Carbonell Vaya.
Dula. (Eds. and Ballard. 1146-1158.P..) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.T.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. R. 33. and Rodgers. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive.. A. T.
Downe. L.. Miller. T. and Coie. Nigeria. Malaysia. Sungai Petani. (2003). 14(2).
Dukes. 223-231). 525-535. M. C. ‘Fatalism’. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. J. Powers. Bahar. S. M. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. and Mayser. Brown. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. (1999). locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. M. (2001). Knowledge transfer. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.E. T.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. J. Health Education Research. C. and McFadden. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups.R. Jenkins. M. and Loke. K.. Kedah.A. Lippold. A. Ebersbach. (2004. S. 263282. (2003). C. negative emotional and risky driving. In Rothengatter.M. and Che Doi.L. The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA). Ball. D. L. E.
Dobson.A.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Social Science Journal 38. A. R. Dietze. Amsterdam: Pergamon. J. Mohd Yusuff. (2007. Science & Technology. Clayton. November). Journal of Applied Social Psychology. (Eds. S. W.E...Y.L.S.L. (1999). (Ed. (1997). R. 53.D.G. 31.
Dodge.. December). (1987). H. 197208.a. Asian Institute of Medicine. In Dorn.
) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Lalovic. (2002).
Dunbar. G. satisfaction and commitment. Leadership and Organizational Development. G. G. R.L. 293-300. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. N. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. Kim. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Causal ordering of stress. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.L. 113.. A. 22(4). New York: Academic. J. J. (1993).
Dumais. Ménard-Buteau. To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop. A.A.. J.. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.M.
Edwards. (1971). 201-22. March 20-22..(Ed.. and Turecki.
. In Underwood. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. 771-782. (2001). Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. R. Journal of Transport Geography. H. (1996). Lesage.
Ellis. C. West. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Retrieved December 25.. A. 279-294. G. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. G. (2005). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. In Lefcourt. 74. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dyal. A. (1962).D. Annals of Internal Medicine. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. C. 159165.
Elander. (Ed. (2005). Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 838-844. 4(3).
Elangovan. (1984). A.
Engel.. Psychological Bulletin.B. 2007 from www. 69.ictct.R. Boyer. 17-26). Czech Republic. (1968). and French D. R. Annals of Internal Medicine. Chawky.. 209-306). Brno..org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. 50(13).pdf
Farmer. Barnard.S. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.000 and RM5. B. E. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 38).
Farik Zolkepli (2007. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. E. E.
Evans. 86(6). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (1926). (1995). and Alpert. W. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 84). London: Medical Research Council. p. E. 81-94. L.M. L. and Popovich. London: Medical Research Council.
Evans. 784-786. (1996). 6(1). S. L. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education..
Farran. G. The Star.J. L. E.
Evans.6bil losses yearly. (2000). and Chambers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.. (1976). S. M.
Ferguson. L. (1991). and Chambers. 23(5). Herth. (1986). 19-36. London: Medical Research Council. (1939). Patterson. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.M. 16. and Chambers. 421-435.
Ey... December 10).
Farmer. (1984).G. Risk Analysis. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs.G. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. American Journal of Public Health. E.
. C.A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. N22. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury.A. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. Klesges.M. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety..G. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. J. 55). New York: McGraw Hill.
and Bragg. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. I. Accident analysis and Prevention. Tix. (2005). A. In Fuller.
Finn. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. R.P. causes. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 289-298. 63-77. 207-213.A.E.. K.
Friedman. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Attitude. H.
Firestone. 137-145. and McCartt. (1990).
Fuller. P. (1986). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. 9. and Barron. M.
Fishbein. (2002).H. San Francisco.W. R. R. (2006).
Fuller. 47-55. and Järmark.R. Cross Cultural Management. R.
Fuller. S. 12(4). B. Linderholm. Intention and Behavior. (1975). S. I.
Forward. 51(1). The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Santos. (2004). and Seiden. R. Human factors and driving. S. and Ajzen.
Fontaine. (2005). Amsterdam: Elsevier.A.18(4). P. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. R. 461-472. S.
Forward. 66. and Richardson. Accident Analysis and Prevention. consequences and considerations.. Journal of Safety Research 38.T. 412-426. (1974). New York: Knopf. R. (2000). August). Recherche Transports Sécurité. Malays and Indians compared..
Ferguson..A. 37.W. Women and traffic accidents. R. (2007). and Rosenman. E. J. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. 115-134. Teoh. Belief. 38(5). M. Journal of American College Health. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. (1998. A. 77-97).
S.. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. (2006). 16(5).T.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Journal of Food Products Marketing.. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Y.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Hillsdale. and Carbonell Vaya. (1999). A. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India.
Gidron. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.
Ghazali. MY: Sage. 58(1). R. N. European Journal of Public Health. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Fuller. N. and Gomez. (1996). Petaling Jaya.
Grayson. and Blanchard.
Galovski. 167-202). 1233-1248. E. L. A.. 19. and Davidson.B. E. D.
. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. (1999). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 540-546. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application.W. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. 109-116. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 13-21. D. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. E. (2006). 203-220.B. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. (1949). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour... (2008).
Gidron. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. (1997). Ergonomics. Gal. C. Y. K.
Glass. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 487-491. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. R. 93-96). (2006).
Garg. E. and Mahbob. Stress and Coronary Disease. J. McHugh. Aggressive Driver. 12(4).D.E. C. S. R. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. G. (1977). A. T. (Eds. and Pender. 33(6).
Ghiselli.S. (Eds.T. and Hyder. In Rothengatter. Malta.C.A. 109-128. E.E.A. and Syna Desevilya. 42(9). Behavior Paterns. E.
Graham. (2003). 6. T. Rajasingham-Senanayake. H. Mutu. and Brown. Nandy.
 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.
2nd Edition. IV. G. H.M. W. H. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). (2001). H. (1975). (1983). 659-662.G. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. D. 479-490..B. 37.M. C. Dutton. 38.
Levenson.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Janssen. H. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. Billittier. H. Journal of Social Psychology. (1976). 397-401. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. G. E. N. 377-383. pp.
. Journal of Personality Assessment. H.P.M. and Stiller. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. New York: E.M. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. British journal of Psychology. 41. 93.L. A. (Ed. and Nutter.
Levenson. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. 253-269). (1974). 3. R.J.A.407-423.
Levenson.M. Cancer as a turning point. Jehle.. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers.K. A.V. In Lefcourt. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Barrett. and Morgan.
Lawton.. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. New York: Academic.
Lefcourt. 97. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.
Lerner. Applied Ergonomics..
LeShan. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control.. D. 303-304.C.
Lenior. L. Malay dominance and opposition politics. H. Moscati. 177-196. (2002). (1989). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1973).
Leech. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.
Lee. K. (2002). R. Conner.
C.A. Hwang. (1997). Wu. (1979).P. Huang. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. (1980). L-L. A. 213-222. Differentiating among internality. and Yen. 7. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. H-D.
Levenson. In Rothe. S. Psychological Reports. (Ed. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.S. 15-63). 59-67.M..htm. Neighbors. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. 8-9
Liverant. M-R. 2007 from http://thestar.P... 10. W. February 2). (2004). Retrieved April 5. L. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.limkitsiang.S. (Ed.
Levy. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. R. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 125-127. 536-545. (1960). Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. I. (2007. Accident Analysis and Prevention..my/news/story.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer.. and Donovan. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. D. K. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. 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.
Lonero. H. New York: Academic. 36. Retrieved May 14. 2007 from http://www. The Star Online.
Looi. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.com.
Loo. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. In Lefcourt. D. H.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.
. 39(3). (2007). powerful others and chance.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.
Lim. H-F. (1981). (1999. March 26). and Scodel.
Lin. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. H. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 11.M.
31. 391-411. H. 68(5). J. J.. S. A. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. R. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions.A. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Monash University Accident Research Centre.W. J.. D. (1999).
. R. (2003). C. and Wan. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. (1989). (1994). Victoria NSW. 869-897. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. 62-67. 27(1). H. Journal of Personality. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. I..
Luckner. (2000).P. Vissers. K. 73-87. (1995). P. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Hershberger.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. behavior and cognition.
Lourens. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Balla. (1994.. W. C. 593-597. G. M.R. Report No.A. and Jessurun.F. 129. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1988).
Macdonald. and Williams.K. and level of education.M.L.
Maruyama. Accident Analysis & Prevention..
Marsh. (1998). G. Journal of Rehabilitation.
Matthews. Psychological Bulletin.
Marcoulides. and Balla.R. (1986). A.
Martin. (1997). Quality & Quantity. and McDonald.
Marsh.L.F.L. Campbell. of affect.M. In Dorn. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 103. L. Australia. 18(4). age. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. May).L. and Mooran. R.W.R. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. D.
Massie. Watson. (Ed. J.L. 299313.M.28. Malaysia. Annual mileage. 55(2). 185-217.A. 233-252).
Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. F. Sambasivan.
Md-Sidin. and Brown. (1977). Malaysia Today. Duncan.
. Gilbody. 71-77. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support.
McKenna.E. Waylen. G. F. (1989). M. R. 23. (1983). New York: Plenum.R. (1986). (1990). Rinehar and Winston. Accident Analysis and Prevention.W.
Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.
Mercer.. 34(47). Ergonomics. Personality in Adulthood. 769-778. (2007).
Mendel. A. 173-181..
McRae. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.. I.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. (2009).E. and Burkes.
Meichenbaum. Psychological Medicine. J.D.P. Ismail.P. Journal of Managerial Psychology. and Neilly.. I. (1989). 45-52. [ in press]. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Hampshire UK. (1998).P. and Costa..V. E. Fort Worth TX: Holt. November 6). 37(6). Retrieved April 5. M. (2005. J. (1974). P.. Perspectives Psychiatriques. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Unconscious suicides. L.htm
McConnell. Risk Analysis. S. Beresford.
McKenna. New York: Guilford.
McMillan. D. 9. 2007 from http://www. 29. S. G. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven.malaysia-today. The University of Reading. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. D. Understanding Human Behavior. F. 649-663.
E. K. J. Statistics.A. (1997). L. and Blum. Time intervals between accidents. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Washington DC. (2003). 33(3). First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. 335-342. 6(2). Hasselberg. V. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. and Schwing. E. Finland. 38(6). J. R. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A. Kayumov. and Niemi. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.L. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. (Eds. 44(2). G. 61(3). Nhan. Safety Science. (154). Retrieved May 23. (1983. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Bulmas. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. May). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. P. 2006 from http://www.. J. (2006). E.L.L. and Johnson.
Mikkonen. and Shapiro. L. D. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75-85.. 2007. 21(4).
Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).. l. what should we do? In Evans. H. Aggressive driving. (1985). M. 401406.panducermat. microsleep episodes. C.
Michon. 147-161. 195-211.M. New York: Plenum.php.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. (1949).org.pdf
Moller. (1989).aaafoundation. and Keskinen. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. and Laflamme.
. In Helkama. J. from http://www. (Eds. Simulator performance.org/pdf/agdr3study. (2006). 341-353.
Mintz. Retrieved December 15..
Monárrez-Espino. Journal of Applied Psychology. A.
Miles. Turku. In Aggressive driving: three studies.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. L.
and Summala H.
Neuman. A. Petaling Jaya.
Niméus. D. A.
Näätänen. 137-144. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil... Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. I. 38(1). P. and Krasner. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. E.
Mousser. 32-37. 51-63. 167-202). T. 339-343.
Montag. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. W.E. W. A.
Most. (2003). In O’Donoghue . A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. and Gomez. A. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. (1987).) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. (Eds. and Astur. R. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.
Nandy. Accident proneness and road accidents. Visual Cognition. H.L. (1974). J. Journal of Affective Disorders. 320-388).L. 8. Nandy. MY: Sage. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. 6. (2007).B. A. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). 164-174. and Comrey.
. 15(2). (1976). Transcultural Psychiatry. R. 42.
Näätänen.S.. 72. (1999). Journal of Applied Psychology.
Morris.T. Religioin 37. New York: Allyn & Bacon. (1994). K. and Summala. R. and Maniam. 125-132. S. Amsterdam: North Holland. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. (2007).L.
Moore. Fifth Edition. R. (1956). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 243-261. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Boston: Pearson. L.
(Ed. 4. (1996. Spanish Journal of Psychology. Aggression on roadways. P. Garner. Pentilla. December 9). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. K.
. and Williams. Injury Prevention. In Fuller. 468-472.. 237-252. February 8).
Ogden. P. Human factors in modern traffic systems. and Santos. J. (1997). (Eds. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application].R.W.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.
Ochando. B.W.S. (2002). R. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. 92-93. 171. 445-460.
Novaco. (2007. 40(10). 43-76). M. 34. Temes. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’.
O’Connell. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Zwi (1997). says operator.L (2002). A. 4(2). UK: Ashgate. British Journal of Psychiatry.A. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Straits Times.
O’Neill. In Baenninger. Aldershot. F. and Z. 1016-1024. R. p.. (1996).
Ohberg. and Lonnqvist. Ergonomics. N51.
Novaco. Driver perception-response time.
N-S highway still one of the safest roads. (1998). Oxford UK: North Holland. I. 2(5).W. 201-215). P. A. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. R.
Noy. (2000).) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. (2001). (1997). Driver suicides.F (2001).. and Hermida. Tropical Medicine and International Health.38. R. A. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Tucson. 654-656. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Odero.B. and Olson.
Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. 253-326). W.L. J. E. R. M. In Dewar. p.
T. N. driving violations and accident involvement. 456-461. Tassinary. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).
Parker. J..W. 113-140.. Traffic locus of control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Personality and Individual Difference. and Lajunen (2005). 37(1).
Parkinson.T. W. R. (1995). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. 125-134).
Parker. 38(5). 40. Driving errors.pdf -
Pai.R. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. (2008). Reason. M. O. Journal of Environmental Psychology.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (1974).
. (2005). L..
Özkan. 479-486.ictct. H. M. and Grossman-Alexander. 507-526.. D. 533-545. D.
Özkan. and Huguenin. T. B. Ergonomics.A. J.S. 92. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 18.G. and Schneider. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 1036-1048. British Journal of Psychology.S. and Synodinos. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 34. 42.G.R and Stradling. (pp. Helsinki. (2001).
Parsons. (2004). 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. and Saleh. T. C. Lajunen. 3-13. and Kaistinen. and Summala.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Eds. D. Manstead. Accident Analysis & Prevention. T. (2002).
Papacostas. A. C. Finland. Ulrich.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. J. R. 229-235.E. R.
Parker. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Hebl.
Parsons. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. (1998).S. 38(3). T. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. S.. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. Anger on and off the road. Retrieved December 20.D. Lajunen. (1988).. 2007 from www.M.
(1999). 3.R. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Automotive Vehicle Safety.H. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. and Mathers (Eds. L. Scurfield.ictct. (2002). 68-79.J.A. Locus of Control in Personality. A. D. British Medical Journal. Superstition. W. (1980).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Perry. and Åkerstedt. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. G. (2002). J. Sleet. 875-878. Simple reaction time. 12(3). D.R. B. Geneva. 63. (1976). Taillard. Mohan.. G. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 201-204.A. Journal of Sleep Research. 147-154.B. D. 9-14
. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. March 20-22. 2007 from http:www. (2000)..M..
Per.. 1153. and Al Haji. (1986). (2005). Retrieved March 31. A. E. R.
Philip. and Hyder. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Jarawan. D. and Baldwin. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.J. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. P.s
Pelz. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. 91. D. Morristown NJ: General Learning. Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Pestonjee. A. 324.C.
Perry. Quera-Salva.. K. Hyder.
Phares.. London: Taylor & Francis. Campo Grande. 8(1). and Singh. and Renner. 619-623. M.. M. T.. Matto Grosso do Sul. (1971).) (2004). M. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. A.
Peters. Bioulac. (2003). B. 35. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Peters. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A.
Peltzer.and Schuman. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. U.
Peden. S. Brazil. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers.
Preston.-G. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. (1993). S. and Pant. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.J. Traffic Engineering and Control. S. Breen. F. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. 32(2). Journal of Applied Psychology. (1989). 16(3). and Anderle. S. (1965). and Lussier. 317-333.
Radin Umar. P. New York: McGraw Hill. (1990).
Porter. 1315-1332. (2005). 32(3).
Reason. and Campbell.S. (1976). W. Baxter. A.
Rautela. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 673-678. T. S. 299-300. 334-343. Ergonomics. J. (1990). (1994).. Rider training. 20(4). Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. and Langley.A. (2007). C. S. 733-750. Disaster Prevention and Management.
Plous. D.J. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. 33. Human Error. Manstead. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 32.S..
Proctor.D. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Stradling. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 78-80.N.J.I. internal-external locus of control and depression. J. 566-573. (2000). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Hopelessness. T.H.. C. L.
Reeder. Cambridge University Press. J. and Harris. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.. S.
Prociuk. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. and Corlett. 284-288. 29(1).E.
Renner. (1991). R.. J.
. E. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. R. (1996).
Reason.J. 26. Chalmers. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. K. 3112).
H. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. T. (2007) Statistik2006. 45(8). Tippetts. S. R. Stress and Health.
Retting. 2007 from http://www. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. (2003).html
Robbins. 1-7. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender.R. and Voas. Organizational Behavior.L. R. Weinstein. and Downe. R. (2002). (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.
Romano. April). Journal of Safety Research. A. (2000). R. M.P. Theories of science in traffic psychology. (1999).A. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. E. Tippetts. Report to the General Assembly. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rimmö. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Eds.
Romano. and Nickel. E.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. 485-489. 453-460.64. Ergonomics. 34(15). Journal of Safety Research. R. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. S. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 2007 from http://202. Retrieved December 11. S.G.
Richardson. P-A. and Solomon.pdf
Risser. cities.190. and Voas..D. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.
Robbins..Y. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.S.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.B. (2000). Retrieved May 23.
Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. In Rothengatter.efpa.
Rice. In Lim. Anger. 37(1). and Huguenin. P. Accident Analysis & Prevention. P. (Ed). 37(3). S. 569-582. (2003. K. Singapore: Elsevier. (2004).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. W-R. (2005).G. R.
Rowley. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. J. A. 45. 80. 43(1).
.B. G. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. In Underwood. (pp.P. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Rothengatter. Boston: Kluwer.
Rotter. T. (2002). (Ed. M. (1966). Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. In Barjonet. 3-12). Psychological Monographs. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. C. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable.
Rosenbloom. P-E. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Bhopal. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. J. T. 43(3).
Rotter. 489-493. G. and Bhopal. J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Traffic safety: content over packaging.P. 10. (Ed.
Rotter. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 5. topics and methods. T.(Ed. 84-115. (2005). 88. 214-220). M. 249-258. J. 428-435
Rothe. and Shahar. (2007). An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.B.B. J. whole issue. (2006). (1975).
Rowley. In Rothe. C. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. T. American Psychologist. (2002). Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (1990). T. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. 595-600).
Rothengatter.B. (2001) Objectives. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Capital & Class.
Rothengatter. (1998). (Ed.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. (2005).
). Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].malaysia-today. sports and home accidents.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. J. Kuala Lumpur. IBU Pejabat Polis. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. (1999).
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). 33-36. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. and Heiskanen. September 29). Malaysiatoday (Reuters).htm
. (2005. 373-376. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. (2005). Correlations between traffic. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. (1997).my. spills & death plague Malaysian roads.rmp. Thrills. 29(1). S. R.
Sabey. Bukit Aman.
Rude drivers lack emotional control.
Saad. 37(2). B. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. J. (2006.
Salminen. Road Safety – Back to the Future. Bukit Aman.
Sadiq. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. and Santos (Eds. (2002). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. p.
Salminen. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 23-42). Kuala Lumpur.A2.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Retrieved December 11. In Fuller. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. F. September 26). IBU Pejabat Polis.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman. S. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. 2007 from http://www. occupational. IBU Pejabat Polis.gov. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. The Star. 2003 from http://www. Retrieved May 22.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000).A.
Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
 Sansone.T.). 117-147).. (1966). 179-188. H.
Schlag. Morf.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. C. K.. 6(9). P. Fosser. Accident Analysis and Prevention. F. J. 801-810. (1997). and Panter. A.F. and the social psychological road in between. 293302
Salih. C. The research process: of big pictures. P.. and Bourne.A.. D. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Rizzo. and Schade. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. A. (2006).K. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. and Young. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. M. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. In Sansone. In Honjo.F. little
details. Asian Survey. C. (2000). (2008.
Scuffham. conscientiousness. 29(3).. M. (Eds. Severson.C. M.. In Healy. (2004). and sensation seeking. (1981).
. I. K.F. (2003). A. Regional Development Series. Ball. Traffic Engineering + Control. November 15). Morf. (1995). Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Bourne. 34.. 35. L. 6.E.
Sendut. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers.L. Healy. L.E. 314-318. (Ed.C. Jr.
Scuffham. A. J. S. 41. Ericsson. v. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 673-687.
Schneider. 38. V. Jr. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.
Sagberg.T. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules.C.I. and Langley (2002). B. Personal correspondence.A. K. Nagoya: Japan. Applied Economics. and Sætermo. 3-16). C. 484-491. and Panter. M.
(2001). D. G. suicide and unconscious motivation. and Roskova. 119(3). C.
Shinar. 25. and Kanekar.
Siegriest. Ergonomics. J. M. and Payne. Strategic Management Journal. (2007).R.. B. In Barjonet. 46(15). Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Hult.
Shapiro. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. Summala. (2000).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. C. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 66. U. Automobile accidents. A. Journal of Counseling and Development. Dewar.
Sharma. 3-7. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 15(3). P. Ketchen. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. D. (1962). (1956). 1549-1565. B.M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.M and Kacmar. Journal of Consumer Research. E. (2003). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.
Sharkin. S.T. and Zakowska.L. (1988).. S.E. J.S. 361-365.
Siegel. 237-240. M. 137-160. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). (Ed. D.P. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. (2003).
.. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (1988). American Journal of Psychiatry.J. 1.
Sekaran. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Boston: Kluwer. R.E. 325-343. 397-404.. P-E. K. (2004). New York: McGraw Hill. H. and Warshaw.
Sheppard..H. 51(1). Hartwick. L. Fourth Edition. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. 180-205).
R. N. B. E. 14(4).org/publik/driving.J. 50(8). H..com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1
Snyder. N. Journal of Risk and Insurance. (Ed. R. expression and control of anger.K. 477-492. Matthews. Retrieved December 1. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Stress. (2007).C. American Psychologist. P. D. 1029-1030. 47(8).. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale.. S. Jr. 49-68). (2004). Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Stanton. C. 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. 237-258. 44.
Social Issues Research Centre (2004. (2001. (1998). International Journal of Stress Management. (2007).sirc. B.
. A.. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.. and Coombs. C. 2007 from http://findarticles.D. 386-397. Issues in Science and Technology.A. Retrieved December 25. In Stanton. and Sydeman.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. Editorial.
Stanton. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. Ergonomics. and Frank. August). Lichtenstein.A. Auto safety and human adaptation. N.A.
Slovic.). 1151-1158. (1977). Houston. and Watson.. M. S. B. P. Boca Raton. Measuring the experience. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. B. B. Oxford UK. In Kassinove. Winter). (1997). and Guest.D.J. Fishchoff. J. Crowson. J.
Smiley. Reheiser. C. (1992). Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. M...G. P. and Poirier.pdf
Spielberger.K. (1995). Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. 2007 from http://www. London: Arnold.C.
Sinha. Product design with people in mind. 21(4). FL: Taylor & Francis. 1-18). Corrigan. (Ed. Kurylo.
Novaco. J. In Lewis. M.
Steiner. N. 35. J. (1988). M. and Pinto. The Methodology of Theory Building. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2001). N. 529-544.. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. D.
Stanton. 63.A. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Trabasso. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. T.W. Maggio.A.
 Stough. Cheltenham.E. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Traffic congestion. 178-182. Morrison. Sümer. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Type A Behavior. (Eds. (2001). Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. and Jin. N.
.. M. N. 247-254. 1359-1370. G. Journal of Psychology. 681-688. (Ed. Palamara. R.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. UK: Edward Elgar.
Subramaniam. T. R. N. (1993). Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. (1978).L. P. and Ryan. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. (2003). New York: Guilford. Ergonomics. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. E. A.R.. Journal of Applied Psychology. and stress. 37(4). M. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Bilgic. 467-480. 949-964. Stokols. D.. In Stough. (2000).
Sümer. (1996). M.) Handbook of Emotions (pp.
Stokols. (2005). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. R. 139(6). Medical Journal of Malaysia. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.. J. and Havland. and Campbell. Traffic Injury Prevention. and Erol.
Stevenson. R. 279-300).E.
Stein. 43(9).M.C. H. 44(3). 2(4).. R. and Liwag. (2005).
Sümer. D. N.
491-506. Ergonomics. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Human Factors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. and Lajunen.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.
Summala.N. Personal resources. H. (Eds. 41-52).
Sümer. P. 703-711. (2005). Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. 103-117.
Summala.. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. H. 82-92). and Punto. (1997). R. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. P. and Tantriratna.
Summala. Özkan. T. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. (Report 11). In In Rothengatter.. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 442-451. G. Mahasakpan. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. (1988). N. (1996). T. Koonchote. (Ed. (2005). Karanci.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. and de Bruin.. R. (1994). 38(3). T. In Rothengatter. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents.
Summala. (1988). (1986). 22(1-3). The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. Accident risk and driver behaviour. H.K. and Näätänen. In Underwood. Amsterdam: Elsevier. S. T.
Summala. 21. H. A. (1980). 383-394). G. W.. T. Safety Science.
Summala. and Merisalo.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
Swaddiwudhipong. vehicles. S. (2006). H. Nguntra. 18(4). H. Nieminen. pedestrians and road environments involved in
. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. (Eds.
Summala. Helsinki. (1996). 31. H. N. Berument. and Gunes. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Summala. 331-342. A. 38. 193-199. H. and Carbonell Vaya E...
L. Neural Networks. D. A. S.233-239. 167-172. (1985). (1998). E.
Tavris. and Layde. Ono. Y. 25(1). E. and Theodorson.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. C. (Ed. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. 353-369. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. The effects of road design on driving. Fujihara. G.M. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. 33(2). (1985)..R. 609-615.
Tanaka.S. 18(4). 241-257. P. International Review of Applied Psychology.. (eds.
Thompson. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Kuhn.G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. S. 241-263). (2001). 581-590. T. G. In Grimm.S. New York: Simon & Schuster. C. E. S. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.E. and Yarnold. Y..
Tavris. Sakamoto. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. Ono. (1989). and Kitamura. Boston: Kluwer. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. T. J.A. N. 52(6). (2000). 37-44.R. P. and Huba.J. (2001). Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. S.
Tanaka. G. J. (1969).
Theodorson. 138(5). Fujihara. (1996). The interaction of attention and emotion..
. J.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand..M. 42. Sakamoto. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation. and Kitamura. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. and Papacostas. Journal of Social Psychology. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. In Barjonet. and Fragopanagos (2005).C.. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.. B. P-E.
Trick. London: Academic. Enns. D. (2004). 4(4).
Thurman. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. A. 23(1). The accident prone automobile driver. C.
Underwood. 445-448. 11-22. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. W. G. Mills.
Tversky. (1996). American Journal of Psychiatry. In Neumann. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 106(5).T.F..E.. D. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males.W. (2001). and Sanders. 147-152.A and Hobbs. 32(3). 55-68. 185.
Underwood. (2003). P. and Everatt. and Kahneman. (1949). A. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. O. Personality predictors of driving accidents.. 385-424.
Trimpop. Judgment under uncertainty. Anger while driving. (1997). A. 321-333. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. 7. B. Wright and Crundall. (Eds.
. 5(5). D. G. 5. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. R. P. J. (1999). Volume 3: Attention. R. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 279-297. Personality and Individual Differences.
Turner. and Kahneman.
Tiliman. and McClure. and Vavrik. (1985). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. and Kirkcaldy. and response to a traffic safety campaign. (1973). 207-332. C.
Ulleberg. Personality subtypes of young drivers. L.
Underwood. and Milton. (1974). 1124-1130. H. G. 123-130. G. J.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Cognitive Psychology. Chapman. accident involvement. J. (1993). Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving.M. J.
S. Caserta. D. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 43(2). Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving.ictct. (2005).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.J. 42.pdf
Vallières. (1999). Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Ergonomics. 181-190).F. A. Cockfield. In Underwood. Ergonomics. On-line driver workload estimation. W. (1999). Matto Grosso do Sul. 2007 from www.
Vasconcellos. Sanson. É. (2004). H. Italy. 444-458. Retrieved December 5. Brazil. and McIntyre. and Rothengatter.. (2007). Harris. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. and Huguenin. (2005). 2007 from http:www.B.
Vaa.. Retrieved September 1. G.A. A.. D. March 20-22. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.
Utzelmann. 336-345. Campo Grande.” Recovery. 9(2).
Vavrik.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.F.
Velting.. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Van der Hulst. (2001). M. 26. E. Bergerson. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. J. 210-222.. R. “Accident prone.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa.D. Meijman. Harrison. T.A.M. Smart. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. In Rothengatter.. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. 24-29. A. 39. (Ed. and Vallerand. Amsterdam: Elsevier. T.ictct.. W. J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Vassallo. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 913-921. (2000). (Eds.
. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.
Verwey. T. S. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (1998).D. R.
. L.. and Young. Transportation and society. 33. M. (2001). and Little. and Mallinckrodt (2003). (2001).J. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. Backwoods Home Magazine. 117128.P. Personality and Individual Differences.A. (1997). and Zaidel. 5(4). P. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
. M. (2002). F. In Rothengatter. (2009. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. 427-433.. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. G.B. D.
Waller. N. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers.. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). B. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. 421-444. Amsterdam: Elsevier.T. Elliot.S. T. P. 2007 from http://www. Raghunathan.com/articles/waterman37. H. 438-447. and McKenna. and Carbonell Vaya E. Heppner. January 21). 9.H. P.
Wállen Warner. M.pdf
Wei.F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.F.
Watson. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (Eds.E. New Zealand. 1-8).
Waterman. 123-142. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.
Verwey.html. R. J. Stanton. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 28.. T.M.
Walker. Wellington. Shope.theaa. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.R.P.
Waller. and Åberg.backwoodshome. A. 2008 from http://www. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. A. Retrieved November 2. W. (2006). 50(4). Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.A. (1998). Retrieved December 15. (2000).
Guiling. G. (2005).N.S. 8. In Halsey. G. 1149-1152.M (1956). (1993). Mild social deviance. Hallberg. G.
Wilde. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.
Weissman. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Wiliams.M. J.
Wheatley. G. and Anderson. 2.
Wells-Parker. E. 1116-1121..J. Preventions of accidents in childhood. R. G. University of Waterloo Press.J. 84. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. (1982).) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. G. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. (1961). and French..
West. 271278. Childhood accidents. 441-468. Ceminsky.J. 450-455. 324.). 135-154). Advances in Paediatrics. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements..
Wilde. (1988). Risk Analysis.J. In Yager.. 195. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. M. G. 31.
Wilde. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions.
Wells. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal.S. Accident Prevention. G.
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.J. American Journal of Psychiatry.
 Wheatley. 209-225.W.S..S. S. G. S. Elander. Target Risk. R. B. P. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. (1994).S.
Wilde. D. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. 207-219. (2002). Fox. Dunaway. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Toronto: PDE Publications. and Klerman. M. (2007).. (1973). M. (pp.. K. J. (2002). Snow. 130(4).L. (Ed. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
.J. British Journal of Psychology. 15(11/12).S. (1984). 34. Ergonomics.
S..A.B. M. Flyte and Garner. J. (1999). March 20-22. Countries and Their Cultures. Retrieved March 31. N. (1996).E.F. and Well. 1. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.. M. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.
Wilson. Responsibility of drivers. S. N. Boyd.G. Boston: Pearson. 527-531. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Welsh.Y. In Hanson. Wood. Campo Grande. Journal of Safety Research. Space and Culture.
Williams.. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.G. 31. J.. and Shabanova.
Williams. 26(6). Accident Analysis and Prevention.Workshop. T.. A. S. E.K.R. T. (2000). 2007 from http:www. J. Matto Grosso do Sul. Gavin.F. 807-811. 55(175). A.
Williams. (Ed. L. (2003). Mastering the World of Psychology. J. (2008). 110-131. (2003). 398-403. V. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. 34(5). and Poythress. Psychological Assessment.
Woodcock. and Hartman. Applied Ergonomics. T. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Lenard. (2003).
Williamson. 8. (1994). by age and gender. Brazil. M.ictct.) Contemporary Ergonomics. International Social Science Journal. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population.J. (2004).
Wood. A. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. New York: Taylor & Francis. 557-567.
Williams. A. and Boyd.. 6(2). Cascardi.
Williamson. 99-109. 303346. (2001). D. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.C.
and Stanton. (Ed. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. Country reports. Islam. 1314-1330. (1999). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation.
World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). M. 33(3). Ergonomics. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. N.
Zikovitz. Ergonomics. Technical Report Series No. 473-485. 118. (2000). (2005).S. 50(1). In Underwood. (2005). L. Asian Journal of Social Science.C. 43(9). 740-746.
. Ergonomics. D. (2007). Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Young. G. 487-503).
Yaapar. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention.
World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Head tilt during driving. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. and Harris. D. 46-58. D. and Chaffin. theatre and tourism.
Yergil. X.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. S.R. Geneva. . 42(5).A. Report of an Advisory Group.
on most surface types. to the individual” (Brown &
. or benefits. the brake line pressure is relates. As a result. allowing the wheel to turn. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. differential accident involvement).
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.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. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Immediately after releasing the pressure. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. presumably because of personality factors. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. (see also. ABS ensures that.
(see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. Also referred to as risk compensation. distal variable. where possible. 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. McKenna of the University of Reading. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes.
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. (see also. 2004. p. task capability theory) . and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. (see also. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. rather than a theory. risk homeostasis theory. including driver behaviour. it refers to a combination of circumstances. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. (see also. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. time of week and. black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. proximal variable. road and traffic conditions. The central idea is that. In the present research. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. characteristics of road users. 25). it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type.Noy. accident proneness)
Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. Usually based on geographical location of the crash.
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. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. aptitudes. accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. motivation.. (see also. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. values. intelligence. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. In traffic psychology. not as a unidimensional. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. Rotter of the University of Connecticut.S. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. ability.
Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. (see also. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. Department of Transportation. interests. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 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. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). selfefficacy and self-esteem. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. self-concept. in-crash.
. William Haddon Jr. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. 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).
mobile construction equipment or platforms. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. That is. For the purposes of the present research. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Wilde. conversely. the individual differences approach. 1985. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
. 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”.S. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. For the purposes of the present research. trucks (lorries). 333-334).
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle.
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. motorcycles. and buses.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. including life goals” (Chaplin.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. Included in this term are walking. motor vehicles included automobiles. most usually on roads. p. bicycling. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system.
Private speech: see self-talk. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. as expressed by Raymond Cattell.
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. motorised bicycles. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails.
Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. the ego and the superego.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour.
(see also. target risk. stopping places. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. 1996. draining system. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. at both conscious and unconscious levels. parking spaces. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads.
Road safety engineering: “a process.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Within the context of this research. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. archways and footpaths.
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. overpasses.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information.” (Ogden. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. signage. but only
. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind.
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. behavioural adaptation. p. zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. 35). including the network. bridges. tunnels. 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. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks.
Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. behaviour control) (see also. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. 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. which are the best predictors of behaviour. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. On dry roads. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour.
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. (see also. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. theory of planned behavriour)
. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. remains constant at the target level. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. According to RHT proponents. risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. 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. theory of reasoned action.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (see also. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). (see also. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. According to Wilde (1994).
Traffic management: planning. management science and economics. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. (see also. risk homeostasis theory)
. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. comfort. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. motorised and non-motorised. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. time. ergonomics.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. from its outset. road engineering. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. coordinating.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. In the present research. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. behavioural adaptation. that share the same road infrastructure. community planning. convenience and economy. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales
hawaii.wpspublish. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. 2000).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Hawaii 96822 USA
http://www. Brace & Company). San Antonio. TX 78259 USA
http://pearsonassess. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.edu/~csp/csp. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. 19500 Bulverde Road. Papacostas & Synodinos.S. 1993). Beck & Steer. Buss & Warren.html
. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. C. CA 90025 USA
Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT.eng.
.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.ukans. Kansas 66045 USA
www. Houston. C. Snyder. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence. Crowson.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF)
For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. _________. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Most of the time when you travel. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.. please answer the following questions: 2. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. 1. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. _________.what manufacturer & model (e. We are not asking for your name. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________.g. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
If yes. 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
.. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.g.CONFIDENTIAL
Personal Information Form
Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.
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:__________________________________________ )
.8. 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. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no
11. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. all the time ___ yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ 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 required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes.
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. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. Within the last twelve months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) 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:__________________________________________ ) 15. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female
17.12. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION