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

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

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

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

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

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

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

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

iv

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

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

v

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

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

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

vi

personality traits. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. and that driver behaviours. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. seven fatalities are recorded each day. vii . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). where. 302 and 252. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. respectively). on average.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. freeway urgency. demographic (age. hopelessness. and destination-activity orientation. However. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. externally-focused frustration. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. some personality constructs.

particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. BIT. The role of the proximal variable. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. 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. As hypothesised. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. Results indicated that. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Among distal variables. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. 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. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. as well. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. viii .

2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.3.5 1.3.2.4. Theories and Models 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2.3.2.3 ix .2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.3.3 1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.3.3.1 Accident Proneness 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.4 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 2.2.1 Concepts.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.3.1.2.2.1.1 1.

4.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3.2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.3.2.2. Gender and Ethnicity 3.4.2.2.4 2.2.4.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 3.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1.6.2.5.7.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.5.5.2.1.5 2.2.1 Demographic Variables 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.4.6.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.2.3.5.9.5.3.5.1.6 2.3.2 Gender 2.4.2 Demographic Variables: Age.1 Age 2.3.3 Ethnicity 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2 Process Models 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.3.1 Statistical Models 2.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.1 Experience 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 3.2.5.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.5.3.4.4 Hopelessness 3.5.5.1.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.3 Locus of Control 3.2 Hopelessness 2.4.3.3.4.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .5.3.2.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.1.3.5.1.1 Locus of Control 2.

7.2.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.6 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.7.5.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.3.5.7.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .7.5.3.2.6.2.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.3 3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.7 3.7.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.5.4 Study 2 3.2.3.2.5.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.5 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.5.3.6.7.1 The Sample 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.7.2 Research Instruments 3.7.5.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.3 Study 1C 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.7.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.2.2.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.4 3.2.7.3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.1 Study 1A 3.2 Study 1B 3.7.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.7.7.7.5.

2.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2.3 Validity Test Results 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.5.6.6.3 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.5 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.2.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.6.2.6.6.6.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.3.6.1.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.6.5.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.12.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.3.2.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.12.1 Age.1.3.2 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.6.6 xii . Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.5.4 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.

7.6 xiii .8.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.5.5.5 5.4 5.5.5.7.8.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Study 1C 4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.1 5.6.7.3.4.4.3.7 4.9.6.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.5.5.6.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.9.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.8.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.3.2 Study 2 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.9.8.4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 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 5.8 4.2 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.6.

4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.3 Driver Selection.7 5.6.4.5.7.1 Theory vs. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7.7.4.7.7.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.3 Education 5.

11 xv .8 111 121 121 122 4.5 4.LIST OF TABLES No.10 4.1 3.1 2.3 114 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.9 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.7 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.1 4.6 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.3 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 3.2 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.5 4.2 3. Table Page 2.4 3.

21 135 4.19 133 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.17 129 4.12 4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.20 134 4.29 xvi .28 4.27 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.22 136 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.18 131 4.13 4.25 138 4.23 136 4.16 128 4.4.

1 199 206 207 5.39 4.4 208 5.2 5.31 4.33 4.34 4.37 4.35 4.41 175 5.4.5 209 225 5.32 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.3 5.6 xvii .30 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.36 4.

Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2.3 4.LIST OF FIGURES No.3 3.4 148 xviii . 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.3 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.6 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.1 3.1 4. Hatakka.2 147 148 4.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1 2.2 3.2 2.4 4. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.9 59 2. 1996.7 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.

11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.4.6 4.10 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.13 xix .5 4.12 4.

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

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

351. locus of control. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 2007). 2005). 2003). 2 . with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.332 drivers and 15. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. According to Dewar (2002b). 1989).2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2004.112).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. McKenna. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. “the literature on personality has a long history. There was a total of 341. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2002. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 1983).790.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. p. The chapter 1.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. including the study of a large number of variables. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 21). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. However.roadway. A total of 10. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p.

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

for instance.e. Sümer (2003). leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 1997). drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. vehicle.Increasingly. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . A frequent criticism. however. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 1996.. externally-focused frustration. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. 1. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 1997.e. Parker. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. Hampson & Morris. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. in particular. 2004).3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. 2005). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. 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. Noy (1997).. Speeding. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. in turn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

000 vehicles in 2006.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. Studies 13 . Abdul Rahman.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.228 9. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.2).1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.653 2004 326.304 in 1994 to 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Generally.236 49. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.395 2006 6.552 37.7111 2003 298.286 9.040 2004 6.891 8.98 deaths per 10.012 19.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. Table 2. & Wong.264 2006 341.287 9. 2005).287 in 2006.091 37. Radin Umar.218 2005 6.425 5.200 9.425 2003 6. Subramaniam & Law.417 47.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.741 38. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.20 deaths per 10. 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. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. 2007).252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. In Malaysia. Table 2.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. Mohd Zulkiflee. 2003. This suggests that studies.815 2005 328. in Malaysia. from 189. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.885 35. 2005).415 52.645 54.000 vehicles (Law. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. 2005).

378 11.94 1.63 160 0.91 984 4.68 128 0.94 625 3. 2001).08 1.216 10. 2002.50 979 4.07 2.67 billion. and particularly among younger drivers.967 100 19.086 9.72 554 2. 2001. Table 2. 2003).921 100 20.15 3.593 11.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.178 15. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. 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.65 2.180 10.92 2.309 10.16 90 0.418 100 19.389 6.4 billion to RM5.54 708 3.94 2.025 9.81 3. or an average of RM4. 2006).64 135 0.997 14.22 150 0. It has been reported that.820 13.68 3.41 302 1.953 17.90 159 0.15 572 2. 14 .05 1.48 323 1.29 2.110 10.21 3.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.56 3.034 4.431 7. 2005).05 2.005 15.40 1.31 3. Palamara. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.620 7.81 1.82 1. or about 2. Morrison & Ryan.038 13.10 3.803 9.29 708 3.947 10. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.65 121 0.08 585 2.205 11.37 337 1.15 43 0.23 2.80 203 0.469 15.76 22.416 6.81 2.27 458 2.709 8.71 543 2.06 608 3.61 99 0. general insurers paid RM1.77 3.84 1.67 206 0.85 2.48 105 0.023 5.448 17.99 164 0.08 541 2.315 17.85 147 0.97 1.08 2.45 30 0.49 450 2.551 12. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.92 1.05 2.26 463 2.7 billion.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0. in 1999 alone.47 280 1.07 2.11 2.049 15.341 12.

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

is often mentioned as a factor. for instance. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . In 2006.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. as compared with 1. In a recent newspaper interview. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 2007).(Abdul Rahman et al. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. newspaper columnists. 2007). how they think. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. Who they are. 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. though. 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. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 1997). Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. Generally. Researchers. Krishnan & Radin Umar. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. unlike in other countries.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. given greater risks of accident. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2005). 2001. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 2005). 2006). senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali.

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

122). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. He argued that. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. they are accident prone. 1996). has linked peninsular communities. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 18 . This. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. resulted in a myriad of problems. 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. 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. presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. since 1994. the factor that made the high speeds possible. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 121-122).Williamson (2003) offered a number of socio-political explanations for roadway safety issues in Malaysia as part of his analysis of the social effects of the national north-south expressway that. however. 110). According to Williamson. The very monotony of the road surface. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. generalising to all driving environments and situations.

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

prior accident experience (Lin et al. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. There are two principle approaches in order to influence the driver: adjusting the traffic system to the driver or adjusting the driver to the traffic system. Further. 2004) and other contextual variables. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 641). While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. Haddon (1963). However. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. Ranney. 2005). Lajunen & Summala. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . motor vehicle crashes has been attributed by af Wahlberg (2003) to three main methodological deficiencies: (a) an absence of reported test-retest reliability of the predictor. weak. 1994). organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 377). to a large degree. 2004). psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 1997. 2002. 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. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes.by the behaviour of drivers. or at least predict. 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. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. unclear.

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

3). in the field of traffic. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. transportation planning.2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. ergonomics.” (p. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. To wit. traffic and transportation. 4).654-655. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. or peculiar to. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. but that complex traffic 22 . Ochando. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. medicine. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. psychology. eoncompassing engineering. in a Spanish survey. According to Rothengatter (2001). 246). Temes and Hermida (2001) found. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology.Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition.) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications.2. 2. Indeed. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. anthropology and sociology. 2002). traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. or the psychological support for intervention.

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

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

To a degree. A-18) Often. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. 2. Reasons for this are likely several. p. this may be due to 25 . in traffic psychology. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 1969). 1985). generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. In traffic psychology. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. or both. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. 2005. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. 2005). 2000.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. but for the purposes of this thesis. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. whether theories should explain everyday driving. On the other hand. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory.3. or accident-causing behaviours. 1995). p. often in mathematical form. 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. many models have been proposed. Healy. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad..

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

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

but persists today. personality. In 1917.3. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. just as one can meaure height. found first that the frequency of accidents. sensori-motor skill. during and following the war years. his or her accident proneness. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . p. 1993. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. occupational and otherwise. 2. If each individual has a unique λ-value. 290). that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. p. λ. 1984).1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”.finding. 1920). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat.152). the average number of accidents. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.3. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. weight and perhaps even intelligence. According to Haight (2004). Research by board statisticians. 1962. in certain cases. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. West & French. “irrespective of environment.

Johnson (1946). in any sample. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). noting that. inadequate or irrelevant. 1956). however. 1939) and many others. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. 422). p. 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. 2004). in successive years. in traffic or when playing 29 . more probably psychological (p. 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. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. perhaps physiological. in a Finnish telephone survey. Farmer and Chambers (1926. as well. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. The accident-prone concept. subjects reported significant. 2004). 1929. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. inappropriate. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 195). Scores on the λ dimension. by devising clever tests. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. made an assumption that. None of the experiments. “Because crashes are so infrequent. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. 294).out what that value is. produced a positive. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. but did not take into consideration whether. 1991. 1997). at home.

Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. sports and family settings. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. Stolk. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 2. Pijl. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 1980.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.3. 8-9). nothing can be done to identify individuals who may be accident-prone in order to treat them or to remove them from areas of greatest risk. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 1993).sports. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. So. roadway. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. therefore. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik.3. pp.05. Visser. Ultimately. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.. The concept itself is ill-defined. 562). It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. 1998).

in a study of driving on icy roads. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.3. following their review of the literature.accident proneness (Chmiel.3. in fact. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.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. 2. A driver who enters a construction zone. crash barriers. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 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. Wilde (1982. 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. substantially. experience more accidents than others. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. However.4. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. 2000). albeit not crash occurrence. The introduction of divided highways. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. 2. Elander et al. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. That is. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. large earth-moving 31 . For example.

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

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

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

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

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. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 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. 15).MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping.1: Task Cube (from Summala. but that is not 36 . at the same time. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. a property absent within the task cube concept. seemingly concurrently. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. for example. 1996) Keskinen et al. (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. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc.

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

providing an account of the way in which attitudes.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. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. for the most part. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 40). people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. 126). time pressure). however. and Keskinen et al. 1985. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. 1991). Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. p. 2. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. Generally. Two limitations have been noted. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. 2004.3.6. p. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. objects. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 1985. According to the TRA.Fuller’s theory has. 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. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Since 1985. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. Fishbein & Ajzen. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.3. emotional state. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour.

To deal with this uncertainty. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.7. 2. 39 . he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. p. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour.3. 1985. then. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. see Figure 2. According to the TPB. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 2007). “Even very mundane activities. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”).2).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 24). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.” (Azjen. however (Sharma & Kanekar. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.

when intention is held constant.e. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. greater perceived control (i. 1989) Within the theory. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 253). It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 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. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 2003). on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. the perception of what others would think (subjective norms) and lower PBC all influenced the behaviours chosen by subjects and that hypotheses derived from the TPB were confirmed. In one study. Further.. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. or sense of self-efficacy. p.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. 40 . stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 2002.

pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . 2. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. 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. 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. 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. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.4.4 2. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.2. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. Austin and Carson (2002). Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. 2002). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.2). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. based on data extracted from police record forms. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.In another study. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. Similar to later findings by Law et al.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Attitude toward speeding. but after controlling for distance travelled. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. vehicles. for instance. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).

the road (R) and the environment (E). within specific situational contexts. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.locations and settings (e.4). the vehicle (V). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. however. 2.. Nguntra. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.2 Process Models 2. 1998. Richardson & Downe. E and especially H factors. 1994).4.g. 1997) 42 . More recently. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Law.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.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. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. 1997. Seow & Lim. 2000). 1999). Koonchote & Tantiratna. Mahasakpan. Swaddiwudhipong.4. R.2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.

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. more proximal variable. Personality factors within the 43 . vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. substance abuse) that. gender. By contrast.g. on one hand. Within the generic model.2. 283).2.5). arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. on the other hand. Factors within the distal context include not only road..g.g. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. 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. it may influence crash risk through some other. extraversion. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. as well.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.. Therefore.4. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. aggression). sensation seeking.. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. age. contribute directly to crash outcomes. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. speeding. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk.

distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. DISTAL CONTEXT  Road and vehicle condition  Demographic characteristics   Culture-specific factors. 2003) 44 . hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour.g. psychological symptoms.g. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. cultural driving habits and beliefs  Relatively stable personality characteristics. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. e. As such. risk taking. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. aggression  Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents  Fatalism  Enforcement Figure 2. 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. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. depression. PROXIMAL CONTEXT  Safety skills  Aberrant driving behaviors  Violations  Errors  Speeding  Drinking and driving  Dysfunctional drinking e. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. sensation seeking.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.

moderating or mediating effects. 2003). then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. 2006). then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). In Figure 2. If. 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. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. such that path c′ is zero. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. Also termed intervening variables. for instance.2. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2004).4. 1986). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. M. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 45 . mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.6(i). Figure 2. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. called the outcome. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. proximal variables (including safety skill levels.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. Tix and Barron.2.

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

anger). Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. However.2. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. anxiety. psychoticism). verbal aggression.4. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. and non-professional students who were mostly students. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. In turn. Further. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. he found that. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. errors). Using structured equation modelling. given wide 47 . more relevant to the model he proposed. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. hostility. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. hostility. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. dangerous drinking).7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined.

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

Berument and Gunes (2005). navy. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. including perceived control. have acted on those recommendations. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. material loss. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). They found that the effect of proximal variables. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. hostility. In other words. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. reported that driver anger. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. 2.aberrant driving behaviours. prior to the present one. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. 225). 49 .2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. self esteem. anxiety. phobia. Karanci. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. air force and gendarmerie. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. In another study. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. Sümer. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. optimism. for instance.4. Bilgic. Sümer. using a similar research design. yielding support for the contextual mediated model.

Distal factors Safety interventions  knowledge transfer  ergonomic design  safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate  worker attitude toward safe work  perceived management priority  employee empowerment and control over safety  post-injury administration  return-to-work policies  operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts  lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output  reduced accident severity  reduced risk assessment  standards compliance  increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables     locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.g.5. 2007) 2. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. Williams & Shabanova.5 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .8). aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. 1997. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. 1995).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.1.g. Weinstein & Solomon. Type A.. 2003). Campbell & Williams.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. Odero et al.Downe (2007).1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. Retting.. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Yet. 2002. 2003.5.

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

are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. 52 . it was hypothesised in the present study that. Similarly. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. Ulleberg.39). particularly with respect to controlling deviations. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. 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. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. 2007). on crash and injury occurrence. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. Justification of age-related hypotheses. indirectly. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. as age decreased. (2001) reported that drivers’ perceptions of their confidence and adventurousness in the road environment play a part in the causal pathway leading to a motor vehicle crash. Stevenson et al. 1999. 2002). risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Vissers & Jessurun. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). and that young drivers. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). In the present study. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p.

as well. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury.. However. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. without exception. it was also hypothesised that. Waller. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. more often at hazardous times (e.g. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Monárrez-Espino.g. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. 2.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. as age decreased. 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. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. for instance. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.failure to use seat-belts. Chipman. darkness)” (p. it 53 . MacGregor. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).4).1. “In all studies and analyses. self-reported injury would also increase.. for instance. 129).5. 2004. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. for instance. Tavris. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. p. Elliott. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Shope.

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

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

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

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

directionality of the effect was not predicted. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week.5. 1995. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. and as such. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. increased experience usually.2. with different weather conditions. journey lengths.g. 2001). 2002). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. Allied to this.5. etc. passenger distractions different vehicles. A large number of studies have shown that. 166). the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. as drivers become more experienced. Lajunen & Summala. Laapotti. Hatakka and Katila. As experience grows. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. 2. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. in a given road and traffic scenario. A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . On the other hand. 1971). they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.. Keskinen. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences.behaviour in traffic.2 Driver Characteristics 2. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. although not always.

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

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

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

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

1991. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. or externals . Holder & Levi.3 Psychological Variables 2. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 1975. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Hyman.3. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. 2006. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. or internals. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 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. 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.5. and second.5.3. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.1 Locus of Control 2. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. she separated the externality dimension into two. In contrast. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. 15).10). according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. 63 . Stanley & Burrows. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.g. 1990).2.1. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.5. 1999).. Levenson (1975.

3.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.Luckner. luck. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. Sinha & Watson.5. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. 64 .Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.1. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. According to Phares (1976). 1989.

1999). those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 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. 39). which focused heavily on situational scenarios. In a subsequent study. 65 . If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. however. but results have been inconsistent. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. On the other hand. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 1987). Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. however. French & Chan. 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.

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

complexity and unpredictability. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Germany. Noting that Chinese culture. France. as hypothesised. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Japan. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. Israel. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . Canada and Japan. (1991). which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures.3. 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.1. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. and the USA. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Noy (1997). moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. 122). Their results. India. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. indicated that. 2.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. is based on the notion that … luck. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Italy. Hsieh. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). In very early research. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada.

No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. To the author’s knowledge. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. 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. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). only Cheung. Cheung. Chinese of Malay extraction. At the same time. 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. Carment (1974) found Indian university students to be significantly more internal than Canadian students on the full scale score for Rotter’s (1969) I-E instrument. In very early research. all internal characteristics. 68 . ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. 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.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. This was very true for the locus of control variable. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. Chinese and Indian populations. skill and ability. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China.

locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 2005). Fox & Klerman. Sinha & Watson. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. In the present study. et al. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Montag & Comrey.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. without objective basis. Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. 2007). Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. 1991. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. First. 2007. 1975. 1973). Beresford & Neilly. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Özkan & Lajunen. 2. Gilbody. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. 1987. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. Finally. 1975). Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. McMillan.3. Cases usually 69 .2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Niméus. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Ohberg. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. on crash and injury occurrence.5. Weissman. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. indirectly. 1997. 1995. Kovacs and Weissman. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. (2003).

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

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

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

Blumenthal. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 1985). 2001). Later still. Carbone. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. insecurity about status. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Williams & Haney. 1999. 73 . Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (2003). indirectly. Miyake. Kamada. Magnavita. competitiveness.. impatience. James & Nahl.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Deffenbacher. that the total amount. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. 1998. 1999). In the present study. 2002. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 1981.1 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. Bettencourt et al. Thurman. and specific content. Petrilli. 2006. Frueh & Snyder. on crash and injury occurrence. Narda. aggression. 2000. Lynch. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et.6. al. Elofsson & Krakau. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. 1999. Kumashiro & Kume. Karlberg. Sato. It was also hypothesised. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Undén. 2. 2006). Sani.6 2. Rice. McKee.

Nabi et al. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. alcohol consumption. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. studied police officers in Italy. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. socio-professional category. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). 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. West. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. similarly. however. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. 1989. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. In a correlational study of British drivers. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Consoli.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. 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. Nabi. Chastang. 1979) and number of accidents. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). Chiron. but not with accident risk. (1998). Zzanski & Rosenman. however. was driving frequency. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. where Type A drivers were 4. In none of these studies. for instance. focused on the time urgency component 74 .2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 1990). gender. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. driving style. category of vehicle. age. Karlberg et al. Raikkonen.

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

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

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

with the addition of a third psychological variable. 1B and 1C. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. aggression (see Figure 3. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. the 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. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable.1). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age.2). In Study 1B. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables as used in Study 1B were evaluated as predictors of self-reported BIT and then of self-reported crash and injury occurrence.3). 78 . The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. each study explored the extent to which demographic.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. 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. Then. In Study 1C.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. 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).

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

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

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

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

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

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

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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

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

3.2.1

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

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

3.2.2

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

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

3.2.3

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

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

84

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

hitting or interpersonal violence. 1996). Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Deffenbacher. Oetting. were also investigated. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . frustration. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Bergeron & Vallerand. The effects of participants’ total aggression. 1957.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Vallières. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. 3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. 2003.2. and. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. expressed through the presence of irritability. In the present research. Specifically. social alienation and paranoia. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. 2005). Lynch & Morris. through fighting.

and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.2.. and.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. not allowing others to merge or overtake. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. 1998). (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. characterised by excessive impatience. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). the BIT score. competitiveness. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. (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. 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. frequent lane changing. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. hit or kill another individual. 3.g..

and. while driving. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. 88 . In the resulting measure of this variable. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency.3. three demographic variables (driver age.2. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. the influence of driving experience. In the resulting measure of this variable.2. in Study 1A. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. Then.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. to the extent of inattention conditions.3 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. Then.them (e.g. 3.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. 3. travel frequency.

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

Then. 3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. First. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. 3. In Study 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. This was justified for three reasons. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. 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. and (b) taxi experience. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.4 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. the influence of experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3. Finally. Figure 3. In Study 3. Figure 3. Finally. 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. 90 . using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.

1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency 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 H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.2.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .2. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. 3.1. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.2. Third. Second.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Ethnicity 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 H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1.2.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.Table 3.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.

2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15. within a 14-month period.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. using the same procedures as in Study 1. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 . Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.Table 3.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.5 3. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.5. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.

Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Stokols. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. while participants were driving. In all cases. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. 3.time when they travelled.5.. For inclusion in the study. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. in the case of Study 3 participants. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 1978).g. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).2. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. 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. during a point to point trip. Stokals & Campbell.5. Novaco. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.2 Research Instruments 3. by postal mail. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. 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.

” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.2.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. as indicated in table 3. Table 3. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Freeway urgency 14 III. On each form.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. to school or to an appointment with someone. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” II.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.91) were found to be internally consistent. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “On a clear highway. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .” “While travelling to work (or to school). I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. with a coefficient alpha of .80. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. In a later study. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.

3. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. References to the faster. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2. 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”. 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 “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. A sample item is “When I get what I want. 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.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. 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. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. 96 .

Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.2.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.5.” “I get into fights more than most people. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Of the 20 true-false statements. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Table 3.3). or 0. 3.2. I might give him or her the silent treatment. if endorsed.5. I may mess up someone’s work.” “When people annoy me. I may tell them what I think of them. 1974). Tanaka et al. 1993.” 97 .3.” “When someone really irritates me. if not.” “If I’m angry enough. Durham. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.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. 1996). Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. anger. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. and five subscales measure physical aggression. Beck et al. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. verbal aggression. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”. 1982. 2005. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.

88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Shapiro.88 and . age. Snyder et al.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.4).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. .4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.71 to . Table 3.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. with coefficient alpha values of .” 3. 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. 98 . Williams. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. Cascardi & Pythress.92. 1997.5. gender. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Boyd.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. 3. 5 = “all the time”).2. 1996). ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . derogation of others and revenge respectively. 1997.” “I want to get back at this person.2.91 for physical aggression. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.5. Three factors – physical aggression. 2000).

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

Two to four times daily. 13. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. analyses of variance (ANOVA). AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. AQ and Levenson scales. The PIF was always administered first. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. as well. Independent-sample t-tests. At initial contact. Data collection took place in taxicabs. aged 22 to 24 years. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. rel. Over the course of the trip. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.6. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. For safety reasons. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.3. BIT. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. 100 . rel. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. 8. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. four female final-year undergraduate students.5. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. 2002).2 Study 3 For study 3. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation.0. 3. Levenson Locus of Control scale. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. 2004).7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows.5.

4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: 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: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.Table 3.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: 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: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.

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

5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. In the present study.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. hopelessness. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.Table 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. 2000).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. hopelessness. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. When significant differences were observed.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. In the present research. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. locus of control.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. 3.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. locus of control. 103 .

linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. In the present research. second.7. In the present research. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.7. 104 . 3. For instance. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. if so. 3. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. hopelessness. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.7. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. Also. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. In the present research. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT).3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. hopelessness.

In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. using LISREL. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. 3. logistic regression. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7 Structural Equation Modelling. 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 purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. That is.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. In the present research. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence.7. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.7. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. 710). on the other hand.3. SEM was carried out. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 .

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

7. 2006). one incremental index. 3.7. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).7.7. 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.0. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).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. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.7. the normed fit index (NFI). Thus.7. 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).10 indicate poor fit. the ratio indicates a good fit. 3. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). pp. 1998). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. an insignificant p-value is expected. However.validation index (ECVI).. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. and a measure of parsimony fit. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. Hair et al.00 in which values greater than . 112). the higher the probability associated with χ2.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. 2006). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 107 . 1998.

00.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. Values range from zero to 1. 3. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00 with value closes to 1. an RMR greater than . The index ranges between zero and 1. Thus. 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. the normed fit index (NFI. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. 108 .6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 3. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. Tanaka & Huba.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.00. The index can range from zero to 1. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. with higher values indicating better fit.00 with value more than . Bentler & Bonnet.7.7..7.00 being indicative of good fit.7.7. 2006).Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.00. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.

The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix.00. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.3. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 750). Mulaik & Brett.. Like other parsimony fit indices. 2006). The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.00.7. Values range between zero and 1. considering its fit relative to its complexity. p. Although values range from zero to 1. 2006. It should be noted that. In such cases. 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.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI.7. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 109 . it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another.7. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.. 3. in this case. 1994). James. Browne & Cudeck.

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. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. If the opposite holds. In this case. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . 2000).05. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 1976. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.3. 1976). 3. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. it is said to be positively skewed. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. in this case.7. 1956).8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution.7. 37). p.

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

4% 269 27.1 4.1% 562 57.1). The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).55).9% 23.6% 12.1 Description of the Samples Age. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.1% 34.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.4% 146 14.1% 121 22.6% 15.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences. Then.5% 6.1% 536 100% 54. Table 4.3% 8.13 years (SD = 1. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.5% 57.9% 14. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.6% 82 15.1: 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 33.1. with a mean age of 20.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.9% Total 441 100% 45. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. 4.5% 27.4% 333 62.

In Study 1A. followed by Malay (27. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 113 . Thus. range from 18 to 25). 149 taxicab drivers participated. range of 18 to 26).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent).53.35. with a mean age of 20. In Study 1B. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. In Study 1C.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.9 per cent). In Study 3.89 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered.68.01 years (SD = 1. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 19.25 years (SD = 1.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. with a mean age of 20.63. range from 18 to 27). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 29). In Study 2.

19 years (SD = 11.1 6.3 11.2. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.19 S.3% of the sample.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.2 7. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12.5 114 . 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.D. Johor or Perak made up 53.01 20. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university. Table 4.89 20.43 19.68 1.3).2: Age. Kuala Lumpur.25 43. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.9 2. The mean age was 43.4% of the sample.35 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.65.7 4. 1.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . range from 23 to 73).responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.63 11.5 8.53 1.1. SD = standard deviation 4. Table 4.

1 9.5 1.1% of the sample.4).7 3.6 2.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.2 3.9 0.9 7.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.9% of the sample.0 10.7 11.2 2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.5 14. As the sample was 115 .1.1.7 100 4.4 4.6 100 4. Table 4.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur. Perak or Penang made up 50.0 7.4 0.8 5.8 9. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.6 1.2 17.8 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.

A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 4.2 4. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. 1978).70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. 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. 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.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 116 . In the present research.5). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.2. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.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. 2000). the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.

738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .756 .730 .742 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .786 .890 .735 .711 .727 .740 .817 .827 .782 .788 .910 .830 .733 .703 .811 .739 .906 .701 .715 .904 .782 .734 .707 .740 .738 .737 .783 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .772 α .702 .887 .718 .715 .783 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.Table 4.810 .720 .774 .749 .727 .881 α .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .741 .781 .714 .808 .798 .824 .808 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .754 .747 .784 .720 .

2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.953 . The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.807 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.802 4.903 . 1985). 1998). more than .808 Study 2 .803 .805 . only Form A was used.857 .916 . 1998). Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 1998). 1998.801 .876 .804 Study 1C .05 indicate good fit.804 . values ranging from . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. RMSEA values less than . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. 118 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.806 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. 205). Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. Byrne.811 .958 .800 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.2.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.08 to . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. depending on which is used (Byrne.2.929 .80.4.807 Study 1B .80 or above). confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne.6. Table 4. In Study 3. and those greater than .804 .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 .

it is possible to have negative GFI.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 . 1992).93 .000 .054 .96 . and destination-activity orientation.00 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .99 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.3. indicating good fits.000 .99 . A third statistic.95 1.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 1. freeway urgency.98 .00.98 1.00 .97 1.92 .00 1.96 1.00 1.047 .000 . the higher the goodness-of-fit). although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.000 .000 .00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .048 .089 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .000 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.097 .96 .077 .91 .00 1. Table 4.061 .000 .97 1.00 1.00 1.99 .92 .00 .00 1.100.074 .7. If the value of CFI exceeds .99 . As shown in Table 4.98 1.96 .99 .098 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .91 .00 1.097 .00 1. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 . externally-focused frustration.2.97 .070 .00 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.90.00 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.90.00 (the closer to 1.000 . 4.92 1.024 .98 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.

063 .99 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).96 .030 .97 .059 .4.058 .96 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).2. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY). Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.93 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.93 .083 .92 .99 .93 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .98 . Table 4.085 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.93 .97 .92 .95 1.052 .085 .95 .071 . anger (ANG).3.93 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.073 .93 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .091 .98 .3.081 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.91 .91 .081 .096 .00 .2.95 .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). GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.96 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. verbal aggression (VER).98 .92 .000 . RMSEA values were less than .100.91 .90.93 .8.

(IND).98 . derogation of others and revenge.98 .97 .90.088 .98 .96 .95 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.047 .97 .98 .92 .083 .073 .97 .96 .98 .94 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.94 .058 .095 .055 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores. Table 4.97 .97 .92 .9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .98 .081 .098 .2. Table 4.98 .096 .97 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .10).97 .92 .98 .100.081 .98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).089 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.025 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.97 .90.95 .97 .090 .9).088 .96 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .098 .93 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .070 . RMSEA values were less than .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. RMSEA values were less than .99 .97 .100.98 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. and both GFI and CFI were more than . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.070 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.

Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.105 (.204(.140) .188(.408(.186) 1.280) .126(.511(.140) .140) -.091) 1.280) -.280) -.082 (.410(.064) 1.140) -.226 (. Table 4.057) 1.280) .107 (.091(.3 Normality.192) 1. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.280) .140) .140) . In all cases.409(.280) .280) -.140) .107) 1.064(.582(.4.353(.010 (.239 (.140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .280) .140) -.280) .191) 1.140) -.037(.195 (.140) .260) .064(.241(.280) .280) .022 (.428) .246(.656(.256 (.140) -. 2006).323 (.102) 1.. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.280) -.875(.140) -.099(.034 (.080(.126(.297(.069) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) -.05).085 (.140) .085) 1.560(.11: Normality Tests.403(.920(.099) 1.280) -.219 (.120) 1.179(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.140) -.280) .140) -. 2005.280) -.091(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.094 (.154(.409(.719(.331(.020 (..453(.190) 1. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.280) -.140) .140) -.560(.280) .192(.183) 1.146(.203(.106) 1.052) 1.179(.280) -. Table 4.351 (.280) .183) 1.280) .099(.332 (.962 (. 1997).278(.356 (.379(.280) -.140) . but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.085 (.297 (.805(.085) 1.297(.099) 1.278(.

959 (.567(.142(.852(.210) .915(.501(.822 (.128 (.852(.153) .138) 1.952(.048(.435) -.219) .306) -.101) 1.503(.359 (.443(.147(.135) 1.276(.297 (.007(.375) 1.131(.098) 1.051) .198(.210) Study 2 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation Study 3 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 123 .084) 1.279 (.153) 983(.024 (.414(.467(.153) .062(.940(.100) .295(.277(.986 (.219) .300(.130(.533) .435) -.540(.417) .306) -.104) 1.629(.128) .138(.366(.209(.913 (.293 (.147(.417) .317) 1.210) .360) .919 (.567(.510) 1.338 (.219) .321) 1.417) .106(.435) -.006(.417) -.306) -.417) -.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.962(.306) .210) .219) -.324(.153) .805 (.715(.210) .417) -.210) .030(.417) -.153) .417) -.537(.306) -.266 (.057) 1.022 (.088 (.719(.978(.113 (.052) 1.306) .271(.435) -.259) .911 (305) 1.099) 1.360) -.469) 1.153) .435) -.270) 1.210) .327 (.370(.102) .640(.267) .219) -.070 (.362(.360) .219) -.156(.973(306) .478(.681(.210) .153) .435) .972(.247) 1.053(.153) .359 (.003 (.306) .366) 1.219) .423(.153) .244(.392(.417) -.053(.497(.153) -.812(.024 (.360) .110 (.214) 1.435) -.354 (.799(.306) -.847 (.306) .154) -.106(.219) .884(.153) .962 (.153) .256(.913(.210) -.186(.157) .264) .247) .153) .994(.713(.001 (.841(.210) -.306) -.153) -.187) 1.210) .022 (.051) 1.948(.223 (.052) 1.417) -.153) .064) 1.210) -.451(.195 (.807 (.159(.160 (.276 (.236(.979(.Table 4.417) -.265) 1.120(.011 (.435) -.306) .417) .098) 1.426) .463(.106 (.

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. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. 124 . Table 4. with 44. For motorcycle drivers. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.4. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.12. column a). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.12. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. However. column c). injury occurrence was much higher.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. if so. column b).3 per cent being hospitalised. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.13). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.

Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two 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 21 125 . involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background. 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. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.

15 shows means. crash occurrence and crash injury. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.05). All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. Study 1B.5 4. Also.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.16 shows means. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation. in Study 1B. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. 126 .5. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.17 shows means. standard deviations and relationships between distal.05). All these correlations were significant (p<. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.05). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). 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. However. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. freeway urgency.4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. standard deviations and relationships between distal.

280** .247** .129* .57 4.342** -.818** 1 .97 43. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.544** -.416** 1 .64 7.482** .566** 1 -.716** .22 3.942** 1 .662** 1 .391** -.201** .23 2.513** .147* -.76 3.78 .211** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .D.00 165.381** .88 7.471** .516** 1 -.2691 6.804** .04 26.52 34.202** .316** .44 4.246** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .152** .901** .218** .562** -.340** .Table 4.147* .155** .231** .476 .405** .3455 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .376** .434** .749** .435** .191** .036 .209** 1 .278** .306** .239** .69 24.442 1 -.45 6.625** .345** 1 -.5 5.371** .388** .396** .553** -. 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.027 1 .96 19.15: Means.58 .08 2.339** .533** .186** .376** .

531** .5695 .312** 1 -.55 9 21.334** .43 12.491** .150** .521** .338** .324** .403** .523** .463** .380** .172** .089 -.298** .159 -.401** .514** .69 8.855** .268** .331** .847** .411** .4960 17 .489**.347** 1 -.067 -.157** .213** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.540** .85 9.816** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .440**.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .343** .4624 1 -.162** .176* .408** .443** .272** .688**.355** .779** 1 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.393** .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 .254** .481** .173* .430** .380** .071 .051 .542** .86 6.275** .602** 1 .9 13 46.337** .319** .355** .445** .279** .342** .842** 1 .003 .213** .444** .378** .028 .331** .099 .276** .386** .06 3 2.254** .D.816** .518** .366** .84 5.225** .48 5.584** -.153** .240** .48 3.91 15 27.148* .520** .438** 1 .41 3.762** .5 6 17.509** .178** .84 7.964** 1 .167** .200** .103 -.66 3.310** .516** .213** .363** .353** .9 28.355** .491** .555** .45 5 87.172** .414** .14 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.286* .376** .00 14 19.60 10 16.97 4 4.028 -.921** .400** .195** .25 8 18.341** .434** .448** .82 7 13.372** .550** .103 -.358** .496** .278** 1 -.3079 .Table 4.697** 1 .382** 1 -.013 1 .418** .586** .22 4.56 2 4.140* .515** .335** .9 12 71.731** .16: Means.343** .294** 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .369** .50 5.039 .271** .763** .254** .236** .505** .587** 1 -.452** .147** .462** .669** 1 -.53 19.461** .407** 1 -.

895** 1 13 26.9 -.383** .81 5.451** .404** .52 7.304** .202** .306** .277** .343** .749** .183** .150* .484** .082 .05 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .7 -.268**.250** .345** .191** 1 3 .531** 1 10 16.304** .095 .192**.296** .320** .305** .395** 1 11 65.323** .110 .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .747** .38 5.252** .31 3.038 .516 .36 -.49 6.275** .00 -.292** .209** .186** .288** .565** .193**.158** .109 .210** .422** 1 9 22.506** .67 7.18 -.258** .302** .051 .192** .069 .306** .17 -.862** .324** .81 -.227** .530** .183** .189** .78 8.549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.530** 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 .235** .454** .70 8.216** .139** .131* .342** .615** .349** 1 16 67.11 12.Table 4.17: Means.264** .202** .392** .355** .508** .148** .588** 1 14 20.298** .271** .465** .856** 1 17 43.804** .199**.390** .725** .367** .166** .592** .278** .387** .370** .277** 1 8 19.270** .150* .03 -.259** .338** .196** .106 .313** .402** .385** .277**.191** .311** .9 -.364** .423** .64 -.69 -.261** .03 5.130** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.218** .97 -.42 3.119* 1 21 .203** .641** 1 4 4.230** .033 .230** .735** .241** .308** .151* .17 -.181** .86 -.98 4.076 .254** .379** .292** .151* .003 .057 .373** .314** .103** .259** .293** .281** .456** .401** .296** .212** .424** 1 12 18.307**.483** .348** 1 6 16.230 .502** .70 3.281** .199** .120 .075 .137* .7 28.246** .226** .263** .224**.D.174** .354** 1 5 88.278** .229** .745** 1 7 13.235** .448** .413** .167** .185** .85 19.364**.265** 1 19 25.166** .340** .412** .534** 1 18 19.228** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.221** .476** .294** .162**.109 .210**.178** .275** .37 6.286** .343** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .224** .446** .241** .428** .-181** .545** .368** .402** .518** .270** .422 -.80 17.081 .101**.89 5.245** .222** .310** .228** .221** .91 -.356** .219** .526** .434** .838** .251** .291** .366** .357** .31 -.141* .254** .378** .501 .481** .377** .095 .70 1 2 4.189** .183** .58 9.296** .016 .8 -.

130 . Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. However. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. all BIT subscales. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 1B and 1C.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.5.18 shows means. Similar to observed results in study 1A. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. and destination-activity orientation.

614** .48 5.269** .66 1.374** .349** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .314** .072 .562** 1 .758** 1 .111 -.580** 1 .232** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .D.226** .259** .941** 1 .323 23.4683 .028 1 .876** .367** .334** .66 5.917 3.313** 1 .30 .18: Means.025 -.183* 1 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .76 48.413** .630** .500** .201* .240** .200* -.251** .182* -.880 .139 .6803 .317** .55 175.290** .165 .50 73.179 7.485 11.371** -.192* -.418** .376** .325** .264** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.081 8.043 .428** .4966 1 .06 20.750** .621 3.219** .14 27.383** .409** .291** .167 . 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.5738 8.415** .356** .150 -.035 3.Table 4.212* .413** 1 .122 7.535** 1 .233** .

1B. 132 . proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. In general. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. However. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. In this study. 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.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. correlations between I and distal. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. Differing from Studies 1A. 1C and 2.19. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.19 shows means. As indicated in Table 4. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.4. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance.

116 .153** 1 .117 .12 4.82 11.161 -.121 .32 3.51 3.807** .148* .404 .197* .618** 1 .013 .261** .023 -.10 1.246** .103 .121 .061 .225** .025 -.864** 1 .286* 1 .194* .84 2.289** 1 .040 .172** .88 1 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .222* .324** .31 8.872** .401** -.194* 1 .023 . 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 12.235** .245** .028 .095 .120 .521** .109 -.178** .19: Means.42 66.636** .418** .35 11.106 .588** 1 .622** .071 .054 .152 .234** .072 .D.166 .193* -.07 8.200* .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .254** -.020 .275** .271** .292** .74 15.749** .236** .177 1 .263** .117 .604** .4 5.13 3.156 .43 8.443** 1 .048 .039 .213** .213** .32 7.08 15.114 .853** .030 .165 .2000 .182* -.229** .091 .149 .032 1 .54 11.117 .82 5.816** .646** .378** 1 .151 -.112 -.150** .05 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.255** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .060 -.338** 1 .528** 1 .070 -.218* .99 10.15 32.141 .17 20.257** .072 -.658** .0301 .240** .11 15.65 75.643** .091 -.268** .721** .576** .018 -.45 19.276** .180** .173* .06 2.092** .3 6.067 .204* .240** .149 .235** .147** .128 .171 .373** .Table 4.060 .561** 1 .454** .167** .156 .371** .

01 B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 B=.120.01). p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. freeway urgency.117.1. p<.01 and Study 3: B=.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01. p<.095.6.095.278. 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=.048.090.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. Table 4. p<.3 inclusive. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.034.01 B=.1.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.202.180.1 through H1.172. These results supported H1.01 B=.1).01 134 . While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.125. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.01 B=.063. For the destination-activity factor. p<.041. p<. 4.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.01. p<. 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=.1.01 Study 1B B=. These results supported H1. p<. p<. Study 2: B=.080. p<. p<. Study 1C: B=. H1.04.088 p<.4. Study 1B: B=.229. but not destination-activity orientation.135.01 B=.315.063. p<.238.4 was not supported. p<.01 B=.146.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=.102. and externally-focused frustration. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.20).6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.01. p<.

035.01). p<.01. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.033 p<.035. p<.087. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. p<. These results supported H1.120.01. Study 1C: B=.118.24. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. freeway urgency.01 B=. 135 .069. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.01 B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Table 4.091.22.23 and Table 4.01 B=.01 B=. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 B=.038.6.01 B=.01 and Study 2: B=.075 p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.095.2 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.21).140. p<.054.01 B=.074.01 B=. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. p<.01 Study 1C B=.158. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.059. Table 4.019. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<.064.01 B=. p<. p<.05 Study 1B B=. respectively). Study 1B: B=.165.2.01 B=.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.

52 25.64 26.06 19.22: 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<.35 155.30 22. * p<.29 21.03 25.32 147.88 28.15 161.50 28.35 24.82 168.82 33.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.60 185.05.56 175. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.98 33.89 21.16 3.77 8.41 167.23: 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<.68 26.92 157.35 4.64 27.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.600** Table 4.25 25.73 170.31 161.44 178.77 165.25 5.98 171.48 171.35 33.184** 136 .01.43 20.32 28.Table 4.

77 16.00 14.73 24.Table 4.06 160.05).01).01).05) and about once every two weeks (p<.81 167.61 165. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.29 15.05).05.39 19.25). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05).52 3. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.12 161.12 154.01 14.01).01).88 167.01). 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<. In Study 2. 137 . and those who almost never travelled (p<.00 16. In Study 1B. 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<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. about once every two weeks (p<.06 8.14 15. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 1C.53 17.01. On the other hand. * p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.24: 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<.73 157. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.060** In Study 1A.

31 2.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.47 5.26). However.33 78.316 1.01. Table 4. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.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<.62 10. In other words.09 15.74 77. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .65 73.S) Therefore. N.64 24.381 10.71 168.81 22.05.753* 38 48 27 20 77. However.50 24.52 172. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.55 73.94 20.55 10.S.68 20.27 14. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.58 188.89 20. * p<.60 72.05. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.81 161.81 175. 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.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<.50 184.63 1.31 78.437 (N.859 11.S.01. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.80 22.Table 4.920 (N. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.97 8.528** In Study 3. * p<.56 3.82 162. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.37 9. N.26 10.

the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. 1B. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. In Study 3. the lower was the total BIT score. 139 .been predicted by H2. ethnicity and age – were investigated. though. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. ANOVA results for age. For ethnicity. Again. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. only H2.1 and H2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.6.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. In Study 2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. 1B. however.27). 1C and 2.1 was confirmed. Contrary to the subhypothesis. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. In Studies 1A. 4. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. only H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect.2. In this case.

p<. N. p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).01 F=9.01 F=.05).44.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. p<. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In Study 1B.74. N. N. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. male 140 .3 was not supported.99. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. p<.01 F=2. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. 4.81. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. 1C and Study 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<. N. p<.01 F=8.05 F=4.56.05.05).9.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2.05 F=11. In Study 1A and Study 2.62. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.2 were confirmed. Therefore.S.98.68. In Study 1C. p<. H3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.S. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. H3.6. Study 1B t=2. Study 1C t=3.01 F=19. p<. t(250) = 2. Study 2 t=3.66. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. N.05.2 was confirmed. p<. In Study 3. p<. however.12. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).S. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.Table 4. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.53.00.01 F=1. In all studies. In Study 1B. p<.562.S.01).1 and H3. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1.

299) = 5.941. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. 1C. In Study 1B. 249) = 3. F(2. p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.041. p<. F(2. 298) = 3.462. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05 and F(2. 141 .527.01. 299) = 3. For Studies 1A.05 respectively. In Study 1A.01 respectively).05.01). p<. 298) = 6.566. p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.370. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. t(120) = 2.05 respectively. p<. p<. F(2. F(2. 1B. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. p<. 298) = 3.476. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. t(299) = 2.05).503. E and P scores. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.490.05 and p<. In Study 2. In Study 1C.01 respectively.05. p<. 119) = 5.05).01).05 and F(2. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.

externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.6. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA.05.2 and H4.3.2. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. In addition. H5. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. However. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2.3.3 were not supported. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. were supported.1.01). in Study 2.Therefore. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.3. 142 . In Study 1. so H4. t(120) = 2. 4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. H4. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.2 and H4.2.1. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.3 was supported. that age influences hopelessness. 1B or 1C.3.1 and H5. p<. H5.3 were supported. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.2.079. H4. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. Therefore.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. H4. H4.

01 and B = . were supported. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Therefore. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and B = .306.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. H6.341. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.239. 4. was not supported. respectively). internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. respectively).254.354. p<. In Study 2. p<. H6. 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. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.3. p<.01 and B = . respectively).6.01.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.371. In Study 1B.3.28).6. p<.2 and H6. p<. p<. 143 . were supported. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.312.254. H6. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1.186.2 and H6. p<.01.342. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.4.290.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1. In Study 1C. H6. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<. p<.01 and (B = .01 respectively).01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .

p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.05).01 B=. In Study 1B.157. externally-focused frustration (B = .200.247. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01 B=. p<.01).01). p<.05). p<. p<.317.05 B=.191. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.05 B=. H7.05 In Study 1A.247. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.1.01).254. p<. N.254.317.232. p<. p<. B=.151. p<.349.01). p<. p<.099. 1C and 2.01 B=.232.01 Study 1B B=.418.05) but not for freeway urgency.278. was supported in Studies 1A.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=. the higher the hopelessness scores.349.157.01).01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .275. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<. H7.01 B=. the higher the hopelessness scores. H7. p<.415. externally-focused frustration (B = .287. p<.151.05 Study 1C B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .S.288.01 B=.01 B=.141. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<.01 B=.153.415. p<.141. p<.4. freeway urgency (B =.01 B=. p<.05 Study 2 B=.3 and H7.05). p<. p<. In Study 2.151. p<. p<.01).153. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.280.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .275.01). externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. externally-focused frustration (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .Table 4. p<.01 B=.280. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<. p<.191. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.287. p<.2.01 B=.01 B=. 144 . freeway urgency (B = .01 B=. p<. In Study 1C. Therefore.151.

the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).044.1 and H8. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. but not H8.01 B=. where only H8.006. With regard to H8. 145 .297. p<. p<.6. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=-.01 B=.01 B=-. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. N. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.S.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. p<.208. N. H8.753.1.01 B=.3. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.388. p<.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=-. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. Table 4. B=.S. p<.1. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.8 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. H8.01 B=-.336. p<. provided support for hypothesis H8.339. that the higher the subscale score for I.168.3.01 B=-.178. p<.1. p<. p<.01 B=. B=. N.4.2 and H8.077.315.625.01 B=.01 B=.05 B=. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.01 B=.2. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. With regard to H8. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.229. Therefore.2. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.S.29). p<.239. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.

p<. p<. =8. F=7. 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.1).710. p<. F=4.909. p<. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.01 and F=8.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.704. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 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 4.272. p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.581. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. In Study 1C.2). Further.05.1). F=4. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. 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.01 (see Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4. 146 .

Residuals Normality: Skewness=.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.034.033.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. R2=. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. F=4.00 64. in Study 2. multiple regression showed mixed results.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4.00 MalaysianIndian 70. 1B and 1C. Kurtosis=-.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.3). However. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = .444.05.282. First.00 62. p<. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. p<.05.00 66.00 68. 147 .327.6.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.

01. 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 4.070. p<.4).3: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship The R2 value also changed after the externality-chance x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<.371). and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.463. B = .167.01. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.459. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. F=18.608.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.

298. N.01 t=4. p<. Table 4.677.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. the H9. were supported. p<.467. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.032.01 t=-. In both studies. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.820.187. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1.30). p<.31). However. p<.780.05 t=4. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .2. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. t(300) = 2.30: 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. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.01 t=2. In Study 1C.603.05 respectively.S t=1. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. 249) = 5. N.521. 4. p<.S t=2. p<.S t=2.164. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.05 t=. F(2. p<. p<. however.05 Study 1C t=2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.6. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<.01 (see table 4. With motorcycle drivers. t= .01 t=2. N.690.480. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. and t(250) = 2.S. and H9.1.603. p<. p<.Therefore.210. 1C and 3.01.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.690. In Study 1B and Study 3.

S. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.432. 150 . F=1. In Study 1B. p<.155. p<.422.01).01.041. 299) = 4. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. N. F=2. F=2. F(2.01). p<. N.S. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.763. 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 3.398. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S.05 Study 1C F=5. N.S. F=1. N. N.561. N. mixed results were found.564.S. N.01 F=. F=1. F=2.904. F=5.629.S F=10. In Study 3.01.31: 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. Table 4.804.521. N.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. p<. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.S.S. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.57.S. 299) = 5.S. p<. F=1.01).526. N. 249) = 10. N.S.01 F=2.182. F=.01 Study 3 F=1. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=1. N. In Study 1C. F(2.077.432. F=2.01).567.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.021.S. F=4.S. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. mean IND scores of Malay.632. N.041.05. N. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. p<.

H10. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.1. 151 . 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.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.2.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. In Studies 1B and 1C. H10. Therefore.Therefore.6. The higher the total aggression scores. was supported. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.29). it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. were supported. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency. only H11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. respectively. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.32). 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. H11. H10. VER and IND subscale scores.3 and H11. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. 4.3 and H11. were all supported.4. In Study 3.4. H11. externally-focused frustration. H11. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. However.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. freeway urgency. however.

B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. B = . When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. Similarly.216. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. but not in Study 3. respectively. N. p<.438. F=3. B = .505.263.428. B = .S.01 B=. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.01. p<.565. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.183.121. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.05 B=.229.01 B=.370. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.540.483.01 B=.01 B=. p<.Table 4. 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.01 and B = .048. p<.01 B=. and B = . p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.545. 1C.01. However. p<. Also.S. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01 B=.05 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. Study 1C and Study 3.5).881. B = .204. B = . p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.05 (see Figure 4. p<. 1B.461. Study 1C and Study 3. respectively.520. but not in Study 3.01. p<.387.01 B=. the higher were total BIT scores.01. N. p<. p<. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<. p<.324.01. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=. B=. p<. p<. p<. p<.01.01 respectively. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.385.01 Study 3 B=.01 respectively. p<. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.370.380. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. p<.491.01 and B = .263. Study 2 and Study 3.01 B=.235.

100. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . p<. R2=.516. In other words.01.362.003.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.01.05.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. The moderating effect of I was significant.645.297. respectively. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.6. R2=.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. p<. p<.271. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.00 42. F=81.131.172. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.12.961. F=100.316.01. B=-.00 46. Study 1C and Study 3. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Kurtosis=-.6. p<.00 44.01. for Study 1B.076. B=-. 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. p<. and B=-.929.

F=71.897. R2=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. Kurtosis=-.757. Kurtosis=.117. F=94. respectively). p<.069. p<. 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=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. p<. respectively). R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.015.088. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.271.01 respectively.01.6). R2=. p<. p<. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.431.369. B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. R2=. p<.794.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.704.01.360. Kurtosis=-.387. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.015.01. Kurtosis=.507. R2=.694. F=91.12. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. F=78.606.109. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.6. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. In Study 1B.271.297. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .01 and B = .

p<. This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.01 and B = .01 respectively.3.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.significant. H12. and H12.302. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.1. Therefore. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.2. H12.7). and the moderation effect was not significant. B = . that the internality. p<. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. 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.332. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.

01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. p<.01. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.263. with the sample of taxicab drivers.3.05.1. 248) = 3. 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<. Also.01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<. p<.05. 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.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. However. p<. t(249)=2. H122 and H12. t(250) = 3.05).05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.343.01). 249) = 4.885. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. F(2. p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.737. 4. 249) = 5.314.6.01.279. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05). and about revenge F(2. p<. 156 . There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. Only H12.

the higher were total BIT scores. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.307.224. This means that. B = . Therefore. B = .364. freeway urgency.2 and H14. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. the higher the total HAT scores. was not supported.1. was supported. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. B = .192. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. B = . were supported. H14.277.01. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. were supported. p<. p<.01.01. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. This means that.3.01. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. H13. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. on total BIT score were also tested.01. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. B = . was partially supported. 4. B = . derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. H14. p<. (that thoughts about physical aggression. externally-focused frustration. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.394. respectively. 157 .01 and destination-activity orientation.379. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.2.1 and H13.01. p<. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.Therefore. p<.413. H13. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.01 and B = . p<.3. p<.6.

B = . F=57.8). also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.911. F=55.809.072). and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.01.565. p<. Kurtosis=.013.085).6.01.-554. In other words. p<.297. Kurtosis=. R2=.4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Physical Aggression and Revenge. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .002. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. 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.05. R2=.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.188.

159 . However. B = . H15.026. R2=.33).01.246.207. F=59. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.01.01. were supported. Kurtosis=.092).294.6. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. B = . was supported. H15. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.2. p<. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 4.1 and H15.Aggression was significant.475. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. was not supported.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.3.297. p<.

2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S P.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S N.S N.1.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 H2.S S S N.S S N.S N.S 160 .S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.S S S N.S S S S P.S S S N.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S N.S N.Table 4.S.S N.1.S S S S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.S S P.S 1C P.S N.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.2.S 3 P.S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.S S S S S N.S N.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S S N.1.S N.S S S S S S N.1.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.2.S N.S N. S N.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S P.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.3.S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.

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

1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.S 162 .S S S N.S P.S= Not Supported.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 4.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Partially Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13. N.S S N. P.S S S S S P.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S 2 3 P.S N.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.

and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. AQ.05522 .93 .80 104. C. freeway urgency (F2). Externality Powerful-Other (P). P. C. F3. AQ.f. BHS. F2. F2. Hopelessness.90 110. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. AQ I.93 .g. P I. F4 F1.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. HAT I. C.93 . BHS. F3. freeway urgency.97 63.34.97 .7. two were worthy of further examination. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).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. e. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.102 . C.58 35. P.00000 .96 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. AQ. F3 F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F2.00000 . Hopelessness (BHS). HAT I.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.02 d.045 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. F4 F1. Externality Chance (C). F2. F2.087 .00126 .00000 .4. F4 F1. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . 2002).00111 . Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 163 .96 RMSEA . Study 2: motorcycle driver. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. 4. F4 F1. Table 4. P. HAT Proximal Factors F1. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. and Study 3: professional taxicab driver) with different sample data were used to determine whether proximal context factors mediated the relationship between distal context factors and the outcome. P. F2. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). Aggression (AQ).093 . P.38 100. C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F4 χ2 49.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.060 Note: Internality (I). F3. F3. F3. C. BHS I.068 .

d. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.42. RMR=.94. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. .28 and . and PGFI=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.13. d.51 and PGFI=. GFI=. which are detailed in sect. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. CFI=. .10). ECVI=.045. For Model C6.f.5.97. but not as good as for C5. Externality (Powerful-Other). with path coefficients = -.97. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. 164 .29 and . Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. AGFI=.32.3. values were: NFI=.26.35.=24.92) on accident involvement. GFI=.destination-activity orientation (F4). For Model C5.23 respectively (see Figure 4. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.92) on accident involvement. For Model C5. RMSEA=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.42.10). AGFI=. CFI=.=33. . goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. .26. RMSEA=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.060. of the BIT score.91. 5. with path coefficients = -. .14. ECVI=. Externality (Chance). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.043.98). To aid this discussion.48. Externality (Chance). . An alternate model. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.02. C6.96. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.043. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. RMR=. For Model C6.f.96.97.

*p<.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.29* Aggression (AQ) .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.79* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.045 RMR=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* .51* .99 P-value = .97 d.f =24 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.92* Accident Involvement .97 GFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .57* Injury Occurrence .32* Externality (Chance) .

56* .96 d.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.39* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .77* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. *p<.29* Aggression (AQ) .f =33 CFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.50* .02 GFI=.92* Accident Involvement .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.58* Injury Occurrence .060 RMR=.31* Externality (Chance) .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* .98 P-value = .

GFI=. HAT-R PHY. Verbal aggression (VER). 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .91. IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. HOS.94 169.00000 . F3. VER.00000 . ANG. HAT-R PHY. HOS. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. Aggression (AQ). HAT-P. Angry (ANG). F3 F1.084 . d. HAT-P. HOS. F2. F3. F2. 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).41. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).In addition. HAT-D.f. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). CFI=.35). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. VER. ANG.95). HAT-D.00000 GFI RMSEA . F3. Indirect aggression (IND). HAT-R PHY.91 . HOS. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.73 169.078. HOS.66 153.f.80) on the accident involvement. F4 F1.91 .13 respectively. RMSEA=.00111 . HAT-P. 167 . ANG. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG. VER. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. IND PHY. F2.080 .41 d. freeway urgency (F2).92 . IND. Hostility (HOS). IND.=61. HAT-D. ANG. F4 F1.66). HAT-P. F2. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).66 131.65 and . IND.084 . path coefficients = .91 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. F2.081 .35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.93 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). F4 χ2 108.10. HAT-D. F3 F1.00000 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.

000 N=252 RMSEA=.05 .f =61 CFI=.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .83* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.29* Hostility .61* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.41 GFI=.72* .65* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.078 RMR=.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .69* Anger .95 P-value = .80* Accident Involvement .91 d. *p<.63* Indirect Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.62* .66* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .58* . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .

P I.07580 .86 23 28 23 . 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. RMSEA=.f. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. BHS I.12 d.7.058 .66) on the accident involvement. Externality Powerful-Other (P).12.047 . F3.17631 . GFI=. F4 F1. C. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.047.062 Note: Internality (I).2 Study 2 In Study 2. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.33 33. F3 F1. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. F2.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. P.36). Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). 169 . the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.98).4. d.94 .f. the participants were motorcycle drivers. C.65 and . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). path coefficients = -.95 .=28. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F2.12). F4 39. Externality Chance (C). F3. p-value GFI RMSEA I. Hopelessness (BHS). BHS F1.06722 . C. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. P. CFI=. freeway urgency (F2).94. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F2.

BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.57* Internality -.95 d.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . *p<. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.78* .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .12 GFI=.70* BIT4 .89* .047 RMR=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.88* Crash Occurrence .65* Externality (Chance) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.99 P-value = .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .83* BIT3 .f =23 CFI=.

Internality and AQ. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). the participants were taxi drivers.00524 . This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. P. AQ F1.97 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. Hopelessness (H). 37.027 I.13).4. Externality Chance (ExC). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.=21.061 Note: Internality (I).061.82 28 .35265 . F2. AQ F1.20 and . F2. F4 50.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. I.7. CFI=. GFI=. C. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).95).59 17 . AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.20 respectively (see Figure 4. F3. path coefficients = -.40) on the accident involvement.37).93 . P.079 Injury Occurrence I. RMSEA=.39 21 . F4 Crash Occurrence 18.95.3 Study 3 In Study 3.22 23 .39. AQ F1. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. C.f. but not Externality. C. F2. C. 171 . F3.94 .f. P Proximal Factors F1. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F3. F3.95 .03084 . freeway urgency (F2). d.06743 .

Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .61* BIT4 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .f =21 CFI=.20* Externality (Chance) .74* -. *p<.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.39 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.061 RMR=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.13 .63* BIT3 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.95 P-value = .39* Internality -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.

4. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Table 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Therefore. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator.4. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. consistent with path analysis results. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. 173 . (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.39). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. and. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 4. 2 and 3 are satisfied.8. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. 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.38).

8. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – 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 4.8. Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4.40). behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). 1B and 1C.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.41). in Studies 1A. where the 174 .

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.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. Table 4. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes.

p <. p <. 176 .9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).663. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.837. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -4.9. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(372)= -3.162. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <. Study 1B vs.01. Study 1A vs. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.442.01.993. Study 1A vs.665. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. p <.426. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. Study 2: t(422)= 8. p <. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. Study 2: t(372)= 8.05.01.01. Study 1A vs.01. Study 1C vs. p <. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.41: 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 2: t(421)= 7.Table 4. p <.01. Study 2: t(422)= -2.

01.926. p <. Study 1B vs. t(986)= 5. 4.01. p <.577.484.801. 177 .01. t(986)= 3. and to injury occurrence. 4. Study 2: t(421)= -7.186. p <.977. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <.01. p <.01.614. t(986)= 7.9.01.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4.01. t(253)= 8.01.01. t(986)= 6. p <. t(253) = 2.775.687. p <. p <.01. Study 1A vs.01. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. “freeway urgency”. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. respectively.261. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Also. Study 2: t(372)= -7. p <. Study 1B vs. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.837.01. p <.01. t(986)= 37. Study 1C vs.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. p <.704.402. Study 2: t(372)= -5.01.01. Study 1A vs.9. p <. p <.01.747. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 30. and t(986)= 35. t(986)= 34. Study 1C vs. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. Study 1C vs. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. Study 2: t(422)= -6.200.211. Study 2: t(372)= -6.861.01. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.433.

t(253)= 11. p <. t(253)= 35. t(253)= 8.946. t(253)= 39.01. p <.01. “freeway urgency”.982. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.881. p <.737.01.01and to injury occurrence. p <. respectively. t(253)= 8. 178 .01. and t(253)= 37. p <.01. Also.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <.016. t(253)= 31.567.977.

Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 1991). exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 2. (1993). al. freeway urgency. They found gender. Often. 1993. 2002b).2. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past.. including gender. upon examination. 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. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up.4.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. 1995. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. multi-factorial perspective.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Evans.1). Elander et. In an earlier study. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . Elander et al. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.

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

181

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

5.2

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

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

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

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

182

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

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

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

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

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

184

5.3 5.3.1

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

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

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

185

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

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

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

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

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

186

the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.25 years.53.2 years.01years.16. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.hierarchy. SD=1.3. In the present study. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. Inclán.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. SD=. SD=11.2 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. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. respectively).6 months as licensed drivers. 20. SD=22. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . as well. They were also more experienced (266. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. 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. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=131. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. respectively). By virtue of their age and occupation. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. For taxicab drivers. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.5. 5.63.1 months. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. Of course. Because of occupational demands.7 months. For taxicab drivers. SD=1.1. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. and 36. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. there are other possible influences.

2003. rife with bureaucracy. however. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time.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). corrupt practices. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Carment (1974) also found. 2005). findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. Devashayam. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. when compared to Canadian students. perhaps due as argued earlier. spousal selection. In an environment where career choice. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. 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. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. The finding that Indian- 188 . it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. influence peddling and status-related privileges. along with selfpromotion skills. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. were necessary to succeed. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. financial matters and social affiliations are made. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled.

than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 5. 1966. 2002. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control.5 million in 1991 to 11. an internal locus of control.7 in 1996. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. Again. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.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. 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. 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. as a result. 1998. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1981). where Cheung et al. 1999. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.3. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. and. Nandy. Indeed. by extension. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . as a group. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Gomez. 1999. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.8 million in 1996.5% annually from 9.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 1999). Salih &Young. Sendut. including locus of control. but two possible influences stand out.

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

Underwood et al. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. (1996) and Deffenbacher. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. on a journey by journey basis. 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”). Further. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. With taxicab drivers. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Oetting et al. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. physical aggression. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Petrilli et al. Underwood et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. during such incidents. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Parker. Deffenbacher. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Finland and the Netherlands.conditions. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic.

perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. although still significantly.. The effects of aggression on behaviour. however. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. 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. Such responses. That is. Aggressive automobile drivers with a tendency to believe that outcomes are determined by chance or fate were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes 192 . but not when they involved the derogation of others. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives.. as well. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. 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. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. the world and others). 1997). and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).strongly. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. in the samples studied here. In essence. 2006).

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

Martin. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. p. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Mercado & Tapia.Robbins. 2004. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. MartinLoeches. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Dien. Hinojosa. Trabasso & Liwag. and attempting to exercise control over. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 1993). 2005).5. Watson & Wan. 1996. Taylor & Fragopanagos.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 1997). Carretie. 2002. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 2002. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 2000. Tomkins. 162). This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. Lambie & Marcel. In fact. hostile automatic thoughts. 5. 1999..g. Making sense of. 2000. Performance (e.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. aggressive emotionality. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. Stein.

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

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

00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. we would argue. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Fit index values (e. 1998.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. significant p-values can be expected. 1998).5. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. As a general rule. RMSEA lower than . Structural equation modelling should. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. It is argued here that. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2001. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. 2006. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Sambasivan & Ismail. Maruyama. Hair et al. 5. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. CFI and CFI) greater than . Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.g. 2001. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Md-Sidin. GFI.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.90. At the same time..In the present research. CFI. 2000). This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2006).

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

91 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.96 1. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.94 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.97 1.97 0.034 97.043 129. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0.42 11. P.02 0.97 0. AQ.02 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. Injury Occurrence 35.99 0. P. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.909 0. F2.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.Table 5. C. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.045 0.499 0.060 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. AQ.97 0.98 0.02 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.96 0. F2.48 30. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. C. 199 .

By selecting Model 1C5. it is 0. 1995. but still acceptable. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 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. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Schwebel. 2006). Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Parker. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Kayumov. goodness-of-fit. Manstead & Stradling. farther along.42. 200 . based on the notion that each variable included may. For practical reasons. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Nahn & Shapiro. 1996).1). Reason. Storey. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. in this analysis. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. they should be dropped. while for Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 2006. However. et al. in particular. 1990.48. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.. Hair et al.

for automobile drivers sampled.g.5.29).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . . freeway urgency. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. 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.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. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. externality-chance.21). 2001.1). Rothengatter. The results suggested that the alternative model. 2003). via BIT. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.28 and . As observed from the investigation of structural paths.6. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. externally-focused frustration. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. with five distal factors (internality. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . on crash outcomes. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. externality-powerful other. In Study 1C.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. externality-powerful other. Evans.14.28 respectively). Distal factors (locus of control: internality.66).35 and .5.34) and injury occurrence (r = . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .35.45). Sümer.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. 1991. crash occurrence (r = -.4. . internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.26.5. externalitychance. and hostile automatic thoughts). aggression. .

crash occurrence (r = . externality-chance. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Results indicated that the first alternative model. externally-focused frustration.24). One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.23) and injury occurrence (r = . Aggression.55).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement.41). and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. 202 .65 and . freeway urgency.4.20) and injury occurrence (r = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. externally-focused frustration. 5. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.25). had a better fit than other alternative models. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). crash occurrence (r = . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. which sampled motorcyclists. on the other hand.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.5.

the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.6.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. Results indicated that the third alternative model. Finally.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. hopelessness. However.5.5. aggression).3). the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. externality-powerful other. with the sample of taxicab drivers. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. crash occurrence. freeway urgency. 5. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. crash occurrence. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. such as internality. with four distal factors (internality.5. externality-powerful other and aggression). externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had a better fit than alternative models. externally-focused frustration. Distal factors. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. to measure outcome.20 and . The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-chance. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. 203 . for crash outcomes. via BIT. externality-chance. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. in turn and indirectly.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. as a result. for the sample of taxicab drivers.4. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. had no significant effect on BIT scores. For motorcyclists. their crash occurrence. 4.

a total of five samples were taken. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 204 . In the present research. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 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. however. 278279). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. chosen at random from taxi stands. Huguenin.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. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 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 were. 2004). 2005). 2005. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. Sekaran (2003) points out.6. To a large extent. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. Further.6 5.5.

Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Study 1C: 99. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.2%).6%. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.2% and Study 2: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. as elsewhere.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. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. Sabah. 205 . it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. in Malaysia.6% (Study 1A: 99. Study 1B: 100%. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.2).13 years (SD = 1. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.In Malaysia. Selangor. with a mean age of 20. Table 5. Since. The most populous state. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.31. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia.55). the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.

0 4.0 12.503.3 (12) 11.2 3.200.000 2.6 6. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.0 8.8 (6) 6.7 (14) But.8 6.300.500 1.000 1.150.2 (1) 3. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. Table 5.5 (8) 3.9 (3) 2.2: 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) 7.2 7.000 215.100. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.000 2.286 1.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.004.6 2.6 (10) 7.000 1.4 5.6 0.2 (5) 0.6 5.576 2.880 3. 206 .1 (7) 8. 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. Not all states have the same number of drivers. Table 5.807 733.396.000 3.260.818.7 (2) 2.500.Table 5.674 1.9 (9) 7.2 (11) 12.387. For that reason.2 (13) 11. in this case.2 11.5 (4) 4. In both cases.887. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.000 Per cent of national population 26.9 9. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.188 1.

96 3.212 39.24 0.28 3.90 5.198 156.735 165.91 2.43 2.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.635 1.003 10.24 2.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.19 3.064 9.19 4.144 12.76 3.68 7.606 24.85 1.45 9.251 324.774 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 12.561 1.88 2.785 393.026 10.768 6.496 187.98 0.170 13.27 14.89 3.22 17.50 29.920 181.05 2.84 11.230 266.725 70.88 3.93 0.70 3.92 25.428.104 6.35 4.34 11.Table 5.600 135.588.70 12.55 7.37 3.093 5.19 7.46 8.75 4.617 10.93 9.4 4.34 3.467 25.13 6.029 273.36 8.20 12.041 92.163 10.490 525.97 12.63 207 .137 698.16 2.

46 14.212 39.46 5.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.4 4.10 9.36 8.64 1.656 821.679 90.93 7.93 9.288 444.76 3.63 13.989 6.59 12.029 273.59 1.467 25.98 0.14 7.221 36.82 9.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.27 14.28 3.003 10.20 15.02 7.49 0.133 705.88 2.38 4.22 3.561 1.43 2.02 10.74 208 .Table 5.727 161.66 11.064 9.104 6.170 13.63 11.35 4.992 776.283 770.03 4.026 10.75 5.38 0.722 255.92 25.958 % 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 12.49 12.617 10.144 12.79 13.856 310.725 70.33 4.112 347.606 24.768 6.615.88 3.48 1.64 2.15 5.45 2.37 3.995 233.305 276.

5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . it can be argued that they were.824** . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Of course. 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** .701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Table 5. was representative of a high risk driver population.3 and 5. participants came from – or.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. it is possible to say that sampling.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. 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. At least on these dimensions.Table 5.4.814** 1 .

1998. However. the data has to be disaggregated. Hatakka.6. Keskinen. Elander et al. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. 5. demographic factors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population.g. 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.. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. violations and accidents should be linked together. however. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . 296).2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). None of these variables can be substituted by group means. The problem. 1998. accidents. Much important data is available in official statistics. Rothengatter. Again. 2001).characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. Exposure. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. as in other psychological research. accident distributions by age. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. unless the variation within the group is very small. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. 1979). in studying driving behaviour. e. attitudinal factors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

who argued that. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). 2. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. 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. for instance. 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. hopelessness. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. In 217 . and if they are resultscentred (pp. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).3). 304). In this case. 95-96). argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. Yet. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 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 ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p.

it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. psychoticism. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. for instance. extraversion. much current research. as defined by Grayson (1997).3. not on everyday driving. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving.4). Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 5. anxiety. 2.other studies. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.7. crash-free driving. 2003). depression. While the present research 218 . sensation seeking (Sümer. The contextual mediated framework. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. openness. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. 2005) were included as distal variables. With several exceptions.. Kerlinger (2000) and others. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. conscientiousness. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA). According to Ranney (1994). while still very much a model and not a theory.

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

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

2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 1). Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. or legal intervention. education. for the last fifty years.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 5.4. teams of humans. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.7. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.7. 1961. At the same time. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. From this has emerged the growing 221 . Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. Unlike 100 years ago. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.4. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.5.4). Slinn. 1957). 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. World Health Organisation.7. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1957. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.

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

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

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

reversible corrections through a motorlanes. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.Table 5. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. Hi H 1. transitions for. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards.1. and likelihood of. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. – 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. “rumble strips” in expressways. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).1 Vehicle Road Environment  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. departure warning. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make  wider right-of-way – wider driver information. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. unsafe  blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. management centers (TMCs)  integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television  road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. lane road conditions. 225 . infrastructure. keeping. 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. generally  comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. etc.

communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.2  lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. systems (CVHS) – wireless  adaptive cruise control  road network modifications. generally pilot”. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. 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. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. the host vehicle.(continued) H 1. including those in adjoining lanes. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. ACC systems provide modifications. than the safety standard. traffic lights) safe.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. the systems  intersection modification. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings.1. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. to in-vehicle display terminals. H 1. point.  Radar. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher  cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.  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”.. 226 .1. are travelling.

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

228 .  dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. at least.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. Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.(continued)  electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion.  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. This information allows drivers to avoid or. safety messages. weather-related road conditions. H 1. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. notification of construction ahead. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.

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

4. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. 265). Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. 1978. p.5. The bias of false consensus. such as visibility of enforcement. or an internal locus of control. N6). Second. however. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 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. that “Of these three approaches. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. They also stated. p. First. was studied in a 230 . and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic.7. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. 2007. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. from the findings of the present research. 1030). legal measures change least often.

The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). is allowed to occur in a Just World. Stradling. 1991. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. on the other. Ajzen. By doing so. Azjen & Fishbein. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 498). Reason & Baxter.” 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).sample of drivers by Manstead. 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. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. after all. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Parker. 1992). Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . 2001. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[79] Chaloupka-Risser (2005).G. Howard. (1996). R. Kuala Lumpur. 109-122. Retrieved October 15. [83] Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. November). R.ghipr. 467-477.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. 2007 from http:www. November 12). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. F. In Rothengatter. J.. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. S. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 21(4). 2008 from http://www. Visser. 41. 557-562. Monash University. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. (2000).pdf 244 . Matto Grosso do Sul. Dictionary of Psychology. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Personality and Individual Difference. [84] Cheah.-H.org/workshops/05CampoGrande [80] Chan. (2007). gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. 10(2). R. and Nash.[77] Carver.M. What are we allowed to ask. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. P. and Huguenin.D. Malaysia. March 20-22. J. 61-71). [81] Chang.P. and Lim.. Retrieved March 31. [85] Cheung.. R. Taiwan. D. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. (2007.H. Y. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.W. (1985). [86] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). S. H. [78] Chalmé. N6. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. M.-H. [82] Chaplin.ictct. and Denis. Cheung. (Eds. T. Brazil. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. New York: Dell. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. T. Sunway Campus.0. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Campo Grande.F. W.-L. Amsterdam: Elsevier. The Star. (2006). (2004). and Yeh.

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

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

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

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

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

G. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 421-435. 16.000 and RM5. 6(1). (1939). and Popovich.. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Risk Analysis. Herth. (1986). [144] Farmer. E. L. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. (1976). E. B.J.M. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety.G. [140] Evans. The Star. J. and Alpert. and Chambers. Patterson. 250 . W. London: Medical Research Council. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. L. 55).. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.[138] Evans. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. S.M. 84). [147] Farran. (1926). 81-94. London: Medical Research Council. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. p. London: Medical Research Council. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (1991). [143] Farik Zolkepli (2007. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. C. E. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. (2000). December 10).S.. (1984). [148] Ferguson. [141] Evans. (1995).G.G. 23(5). L. K. E. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury.M. L. L. 38). [139] Evans. Barnard. [145] Farmer. (1996). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. and Chambers. [146] Farmer. E. Klesges.. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 784-786.. 86(6). [142] Ey. N22. M.6bil losses yearly. (1929). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. 19-36. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. Hadley.A. and Chambers. New York: McGraw Hill. E.A. American Journal of Public Health.

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. [276] Levenson. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Billittier.G. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). (1974). [272] Lerner. and Morgan. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.J.B. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002).[266] Lawton.. Journal of Social Psychology. H. Malay dominance and opposition politics. [275] Levenson. [269] Lefcourt. (1976). 262 . Journal of Personality Assessment. 93.. D. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. H. Conner. 97. IV. 2nd Edition.K. R. Moscati.C. H. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. H. Mahwah.M.P.M. and Stiller. 397-401. K. G. 377-383. (2001). D.V. pp. 303-304. 659-662. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 253-269). Janssen. R. (2002). Jehle.. Barrett. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 38. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. L. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. (2005). New York: E. Dutton. H. A. and Nutter. Applied Ergonomics.407-423. (1989).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [270] Lefcourt. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. (1983). [271] Lenior.. C. In Lefcourt. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. 3. [273] LeShan. 479-490.. (1975). 37. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. G.L. H. British journal of Psychology. (1973).M. A.A. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients.M. H. 41. N. [268] Leech. [274] Levenson. New York: Academic. 177-196. [267] Lee. Cancer as a turning point.M. (Ed. W.

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

G. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. 869-897.A. 31. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.R. 264 . 233-252). J. (2000).L. 129. (2003). L. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Victoria NSW. 391-411.L. Journal of Rehabilitation.28. Australia. 55(2). 18(4). and Balla. I. (Ed.M. J.R. [288] Luckner.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. and Hershberger. and Mooran.M. G. and Wan. M. Report No.L. [294] Martin. P. H. C. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. [293] Marsh. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. age. 103. and Jessurun. (1997). Malaysia. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1999). Campbell. K. (1994. May).K. 185-217. 299313. S. Journal of Personality.M. of affect..F. [296] Massie. (1986). and Williams. (1995). J. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Watson. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. 62-67.. behavior and cognition. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. 68(5). (1998). 593-597. A. M. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1994). [295] Maruyama. Quality & Quantity.[287] Lourens. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course..P.. R. Vissers. [289] Maakip. (1989).. Psychological Bulletin. and McDonald. J. [292] Marsh. D. Annual mileage.A. 27(1). In Dorn. [290] Macdonald.L. and level of education. Balla. D.W.F. 73-87. Accident Analysis & Prevention. H. [297] Matthews.A. [291] Marcoulides. R. A.W. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. (1988). Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. C.R. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weinstein. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. T. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. W-R. Retrieved May 23.G. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. In Rothengatter.A. [379] Risser. and Voas. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. [383] Robbins. April). R.R. 485-489.html [382] Robbins...pdf [380] Risser. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. E. and Nickel. (2007) Statistik2006. Ergonomics. R. S. cities. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (2000).64. Organizational Behavior. (2004). 1-7.. E. M. 37(3). R. 272 . and Voas. [385] Romano. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (2000).P. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. (Eds. Tippetts.[375] Retting. 45(8). Theories of science in traffic psychology.D. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Anger.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2003). Amsterdam: Elsevier.G. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. 37(1). S. 2007 from http://202. K. Journal of Safety Research. In Lim. Tippetts. (1999). R. A. Stress and Health.B. Retrieved December 11.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. and Solomon. Journal of Safety Research. [377] Richardson. 34(15). (2005). [376] Rice. Report to the General Assembly. [378] Rimmö. R. (Ed). H. and Huguenin. (2002). S. P.Y. Singapore: Elsevier. R. P-A. and Downe. [381] Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. S.efpa. 453-460. 2007 from http://www.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. 569-582.S.L. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.190. [384] Romano. (2003. P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or benefits. presumably because of personality factors. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. allowing the wheel to turn. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. on most surface types. differential accident involvement).GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. the brake line pressure is relates. ABS ensures that. 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. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. (see also. Immediately after releasing the pressure. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. As a result. to the individual” (Brown & 287 .

black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. task capability theory) . It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. characteristics of road users. 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. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. Also referred to as risk compensation. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. where possible. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. it refers to a combination of circumstances. (see also. including driver behaviour. In the present research. rather than a theory.Noy. road and traffic conditions. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. time of week and. distal variable. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. risk homeostasis theory. (see also. McKenna of the University of Reading. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. (see also. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. The central idea is that. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. proximal variable. 2004. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. 288 . 25). (see also. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. p. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20 Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. 2000). Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Buss & Warren. 19500 Bulverde Road.eng. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. Brace & Company). San Antonio.html 295 . Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www. Beck & Steer.hawaii. Papacostas & Synodinos.edu/~csp/csp. C. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. 1993). Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.S.com/cgibin/MsmGo.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.wpspublish. CA 90025 USA http://portal.

psych. Crowson. Houston. Snyder. C. Snyder.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.ukans. 296 . Kansas 66045 USA www. Correspondence regarding this scale or the associated hope theory should be directed to: Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology The Department of Psychology 340 Fraser Hall University of Kansas 1415 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence.edu/hope. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.R.

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Most of the time when you travel. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.what manufacturer & model (e. 1.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. We are not asking for your name. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. _________. please answer the following questions: 2.. _________..g. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 .g. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.

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:__________________________________________ ) 299 . How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. all the time ___ yes.8. some of the time ___ yes. some of 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. most of the time ___ no 11. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. Within the last twelve (12) months.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful