This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. email@example.com Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. 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. 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. 302 and 252.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. hopelessness. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. freeway urgency. However. respectively). where. some personality constructs. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. and that driver behaviours. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. on average. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. personality traits. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. The proximal variable was comprised of a measure of self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) on which high scores were considered consistent with Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. and destination-activity orientation. demographic (age. seven fatalities are recorded each day. vii . externally-focused frustration. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control.
Results indicated that. viii . locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. As reported in previous studies. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. As hypothesised. as well. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. The role of the proximal variable.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. 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. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. Among distal variables. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. BIT. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes.
3.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3 ix .2 2.1 Concepts.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 220.127.116.11.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.1 Accident Proneness 2. Theories and Models 2.3 1.1 18.104.22.168.3.1.5 1.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.2 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.1 An Applied Perspective 2.2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.3.
188.8.131.52 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.4.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .4 2.3 Locus of Control 184.108.40.206.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.4.3 Ethnicity 2.2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 220.127.116.11 Hopelessness 3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Experience 18.104.22.168.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.1.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.7.1 Statistical Models 2.5 2.2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.188.8.131.52 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 Gender 184.108.40.206 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1.1 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 22.214.171.124 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.5.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 126.96.36.199 Psychological Variables 2.2 Hopelessness 2.5.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 Process Models 188.8.131.52 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.1.1 Age 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 184.108.40.206 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 220.127.116.11.1 Locus of Control 2.2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.4.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 18.104.22.168 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.
1 Studies 1 and 2 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3.2 Research Instruments 22.214.171.124 Structural Equation Modelling 3.5.1 Study 1A 126.96.36.199 Linear Regression Analysis 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.2 Study 1B 3.6.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.5 188.8.131.52.7.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.3 3.3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 184.108.40.206.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.6 3.7.4 3.3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 220.127.116.11 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .2.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.7.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.8 Crash Occurrence 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 126.96.36.199.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 188.8.131.52.7.7.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.4 Study 2 3.3 Study 1C 184.108.40.206 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.1 The Sample 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.5.
1.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 22.214.171.124. Gender and Ethnicity 126.96.36.199 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 188.8.131.52.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 184.108.40.206.1 Description of the Sample 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6 xii .12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 220.127.116.11.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 18.104.22.168 Results of Study 1 4.3.3 Validity Test Results 4.5 4.1 Age.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 22.214.171.124.6.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 188.8.131.52 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.2.3 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.2.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 184.108.40.206 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.220.127.116.11 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.12.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.
5.7.6 xiii .5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 18.104.22.168.6.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.6.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 22.214.171.124 Study 2 4.9.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.4.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 126.96.36.199 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.1 Study 1C 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 188.8.131.52.4.4 5.7.3 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 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.5 5.8.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 184.108.40.206 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 220.127.116.11 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.7 4.8 18.104.22.168 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.1 5.4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.2 5.
7.5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.1 Theory vs.7.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4.3 Driver Selection.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.3 Education 5.4.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 22.214.171.124 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 .7.4.7.
9 4. Table Page 2.5 4.3 3.1 4.10 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.7 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.3 114 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.6 4.2 3. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.8 111 121 121 122 4.LIST OF TABLES No.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.11 xv .3 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.1 2.4 3.5 4.1 3.2 4.
15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.24 137 4.28 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.20 134 4.12 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.29 xvi .27 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.25 138 4.4.18 131 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 4.23 136 4.16 128 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.21 135 4.14 4.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.19 133 4.17 129 4.13 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.
41 175 5.39 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.32 4.5 209 225 5.4 208 5.34 4.3 5.31 4.1 199 206 207 5.2 5.33 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.30 4.6 xvii .35 4.37 4.36 4.4.
8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.7 2.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 2.1 3.3 3.4 148 xviii . 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1996.1 4.4 4.4 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.3 4. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2. Hatakka.2 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.3 2.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.9 59 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.2 147 148 4.1 2.6 2.2 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.LIST OF FIGURES No.
5 4.8 4.4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.9 4.7 4.12 4.6 4.13 xix .10 4.
I feel like it each time I think of that moment.PREFACE Accidents occur. they are prone to other types of error as well. Her hands and voice quivered. lane deviation and all the rest. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. I got back to work on them. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. She had needed to go on an errand. I didn’t recognise her at first. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model.D. I’m pretty happy with it. But. He didn’t want to go. she was riding pillion. xx . I feel like it a bit right now. I like to watch boxing. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. to the weary traveler. He was driving. and his mental state. He was very popular with other students. But sometimes. finally. I don’t cry much any more. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. She had been badly injured. She started crying and couldn’t stop. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. they were focused on the errand. . or wouldn’t. I was confused by the results I was getting. but she’d nagged him. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I told her not to worry. programme. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. just every so often. How important these factors are. I hope it makes a contribution. LISREL couldn’t. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. I’m a fairly big guy. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. My research design needed a serious re-working. externally-focused frustration. things were not going well. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. and this thesis is the result. I knew the fellow. they were frustrated and angry with each other. They were hurrying. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. I wanted to throw in the towel. And they crashed. they cut across a lane too quickly. The behaviour of the traveller. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. at least not with real tears. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. only a trimester or two earlier. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. he’d taken the same course as she.
for instance. policy-makers. 2002. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. perceptual (Hong. 2004) have been studied extensively. 2000. Sabey (1999). 2004). the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Peters & Peters. Furuichi & Kadoma..g. Scurfield. Mills & Vavrik. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. 2006. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. road. 2004). state of mind and physical well-being. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Olson. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 11).. 2007. Sleet. 2000).CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Mohan & Hyder. 2001. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. anticipation. Consistently over the years.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. 1999). Ogden. Verwey. judgement. 1996. 2002). 2001). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.g. Graham. Stanton & Pinto. 2007. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Green. Even after decades of study. commented that. Theeuwes. 2000).1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Trick. including the 1 . kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. such as Malaysia. Enns. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. cognitive (Vaa. Iwasaki. “human factors play a major role in road accidents.
often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2002. “the literature on personality has a long history. 1989).790. However.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 2005). 2 . p. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The chapter 1. There was a total of 341. 21).332 drivers and 15. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2004. 1983). as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. including the study of a large number of variables. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. locus of control.351. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used.roadway. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.112). concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 2003). A total of 10. McKenna. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 2007). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. According to Dewar (2002b).
Rimmö. Wells-Parker et al. Lajunen & Summala. 2005. Historically. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Wells. Barrett & Alexander. West & French. Severson. 2000. 2001. 2005). 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. Shinar. Özkan. 1994. 2006. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Dewar. Ball & Rizzon. Barjonet & Tortosa.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. Huang. 1997). Renner & Anderle. 2005. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 2001). leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 2004. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 1991. Gidron. Vasconcellos. 2003. 1997. 1997). 2002) and many others. 2002. Gal & Syna Desevilya. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 3 . and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2002. 1979. Wu & Yen. Gonzalez. 3). often with widely varying results (Dewar. 1993. 2002. 2001. aggression (Parkinson. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Hwang. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. 2000). Cohn. 2006. 2002b. 2004. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Verwey. 1997). 2003). ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Schwebel. Lajunen & Kaistinen. 2007). Parada & Cortes. Lin. Ulleberg. 1997). locus of control (Arthur. Blasco. Sumala & Zakowska. 2004). Hence. 1999. Elander. Loo. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Stewart. Draskóczy.
Parker.. in turn. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. 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. 1996. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. Noy (1997). 1997). falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 1. externally-focused frustration. 2004). 2005).3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. Speeding. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 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.Increasingly. Sümer (2003). 1997. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. A frequent criticism. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.. Hampson & Morris. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . in particular.e. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. for instance. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. however. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. vehicle.e.
and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. situated as proximal variables. By focusing on not only demographic.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. but also on their interactions.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. gender and ethnicity. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. (c) driver locus of control. injuries and deaths. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (e) driver aggression. p. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin. The specific purpose of this thesis is to further knowledge about drivers’ behaviour in traffic by applying Sümer’s (2003) construct of a conceptual mediated model. 1. 2005. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. (b) driving experience. 9). The effect of the proximal variables on self-reported crash experience and the severity of injuries associated with crashes are hypothesised to be moderated by the distal variables. (d) driver hopelessness. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. 5 . in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety.
Moreover. Näätänen & Summala. 2004). Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. road safety measures and public policy. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2005. Some authors have suggested that. “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. 2001. Katila & Peräaho. Laapotti. p. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. 1997. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 2004. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 6 . Rothengatter. Hatakka. 2000). 2004. 1993). Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. the plethora of theories available. Utzelmann. in the applied sciences. 1974). the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 1997). 94). they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. 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.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. There is a growing sentiment that.
. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. It is useful. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. which deals with methodology. human motivation. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway.. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. This broader perspective. Radin Umar. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. in turn. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. 2001). 2001). Che Ali. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. attitude theory. To the author’s knowledge. 1. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. The present research contributes a new perspective by offering initial empirical observations on several psychosocial factors that could be important in understanding why Malaysian drivers behave as they do in traffic.g. In doing so.g. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. 7 .
In this case. first. The final result. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. Black. the effects of selected demographic (age. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . Anderson & Tatham. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. driving experience. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. variables (Sekaran. freeway urgency. p. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. driving (experience. In each successive study. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. each entailing data collection from a different sample. Babin. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. or outcome. aggression. hopelessness. Study 2 and Study 3. at the conclusion of Study 1C. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. 1B and 1C). but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. 2003). In Study 1. 711).however. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. gender. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. 2006. externally-focused frustration. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. second. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. cultural background). was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A.
are most important in predicting. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. verbally administered psychometric instruments. in fact. Again. 1. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. In Study 2. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia.to 45-minute trips. In Study 3. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. 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. two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. After the initial model-building had been completed. a third model was constructed. over the course of 30. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. 9 . Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities.
Stradling. Are the attitudes. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. However. Finally. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. 1997). is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. The present research. 2002. at least to a certain extent. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. 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 included procedural elements to mitigate.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. as well. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. Katila & Laapotti. Keskinen. Boyce & Geller. while recognising the distinction. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. The relationship between the manner 10 . accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Manstead. Baxter & Campbell. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. 1990). Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. In a meta-review of traffic safety research.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
to a rapid increase 12 . 1989). “peaceful”. 2007). 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. in aggregate. there were 341. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. “friendly”. inconsiderate and aggressive. 2006). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. 2007). In newspaper reports. “patient”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. “impatient”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. industrialisation and motorisation. they indicated “angry”. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “bullies” and “selfish”. 2005). 2007).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. 2005). “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. Recently. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2007). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli.1. 2003). A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. Over 6. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. “reckless”. 2005). economic expansion.1 2. These are thought to have contributed. “laid-back” and “considerate”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. in order of frequency. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated.
653 2004 326. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.417 47. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. 2003. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.200 9. 2005). Subramaniam & Law. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.395 2006 6.2).252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.885 35. Abdul Rahman. 2005). Generally. from 189.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.264 2006 341. Studies 13 .000 vehicles in 2006. Radin Umar.425 5.645 54. In Malaysia.98 deaths per 10.228 9.7111 2003 298.815 2005 328. 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.425 2003 6.287 9. Mohd Zulkiflee.218 2005 6. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. 2005).20 deaths per 10. Table 2.091 37.741 38.287 in 2006. Table 2.000 vehicles (Law.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. in Malaysia.415 52. This suggests that studies.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. 2007). & Wong. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.012 19.040 2004 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.286 9.236 49.552 37.304 in 1994 to 6. 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.891 8.
in 1999 alone.77 3.086 9.05 2.180 10.038 13.90 159 0. and particularly among younger drivers.315 17.08 1.72 554 2.65 2.023 5.40 1.23 2.27 458 2.31 3. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.80 203 0. 2001).68 3.84 1. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5. 2006). Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.947 10.469 15.85 2.45 30 0.94 1. 14 .16 90 0.431 7.803 9.448 17. or an average of RM4.91 984 4.551 12.82 1.94 2.81 2.15 572 2.216 10.97 1. It has been reported that.50 979 4.68 128 0.48 323 1.85 147 0.56 3. or about 2. 2002.05 2.67 billion.49 450 2.21 3.921 100 20.81 1.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.034 4.07 2.389 6.593 11.110 10.06 608 3.418 100 19.178 15.05 1.820 13.48 105 0.29 708 3.08 541 2.94 625 3.65 121 0.67 206 0.47 280 1.049 15.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.29 2.7 billion.92 2.205 11.997 14.61 99 0.37 337 1.15 43 0.15 3. 2001.22 150 0.99 164 0.81 3.378 11.76 22.92 1.54 708 3.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.71 543 2.26 463 2.416 6.08 2. 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.4 billion to RM5.64 135 0.025 9. Table 2.620 7.63 160 0. 2003). with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.07 2.41 302 1. Morrison & Ryan.309 10. 2005).709 8. Palamara.953 17. general insurers paid RM1.341 12.08 585 2.967 100 19.005 15.11 2.10 3.
There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones.Yet. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. In 1999. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. Some seven years later. which is actually a nightmare. 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. Criticisms of road configuration. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. if people want to die? (Lim. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 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. traffic congestion. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. or the pain of the maimed. 1999). The economic consequences can be estimated. lane definition. 2006). But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. (Bernama. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 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. What else can we do. 2005).
senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. given greater risks of accident. 2007). In a recent newspaper interview. 2001. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 1997). 2005). 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. as compared with 1. In 2006. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. newspaper columnists. Who they are. how they think. unlike in other countries. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. Krishnan & Radin Umar. Generally. 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 . for instance. 2005). Researchers.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 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.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 2007). 2006).(Abdul Rahman et al. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. though. is often mentioned as a factor.
Musa. rather than personality factors. however. respectively. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. (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. This is. In the same study. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. In none of the studies of the MSP. Mohd Nasir. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. Ahmad Hariza. Bartle & Truman. 17 . since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Law et al. 2007). In a separate study.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. 1996). Chalmers & Langley. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. For instance. Radin Umar. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. 2. Ward.1. injuries and fatalities. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. perhaps. Law.
“many Malaysians claim that as drivers. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 121-122). 1996). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. He argued that. 18 . since 1994. however. 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. 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. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. According to Williamson. has linked peninsular communities. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 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.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. resulted in a myriad of problems. they are accident prone. This. 110). he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. Social attitudes and experience engendered by the rapid and high-profile growth of expressways and local road networks may have infiltrated the broader national consciousness.122). including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. generalising to all driving environments and situations. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. The very monotony of the road surface.
Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. etc. Among human factors.2. experiential. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Human factors are far more important than engineering factors.2. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. 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. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. 1993. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic.2 2. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. by far. 62). levels of driving experience and. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. This has included the examination of age and gender. personality characteristics (Elander. Åberg. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. Christ. Among engineering factors. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). particularly. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. 784). 1993). bad road conditions. but rather 19 . West and French. 1991).
1997. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 641). Haddon (1963). weak. Ranney.by the behaviour of drivers. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use. 2004) and other contextual variables. unclear. Lajunen & Summala. to a large degree. Further. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. or at least predict. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 1994). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. However. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. 377). He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . prior accident experience (Lin et al. There are two principle approaches in order to influence the driver: adjusting the traffic system to the driver or adjusting the driver to the traffic system. 2005). 2002. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 2004). noted that “one of the remarkable aspects of motor vehicle accident research has been the willingness of many to base scientific investigations on data of a quality which would immediately cause their rejection as the stuff of research in any other subject area” (p. 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.
1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 321). Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 2002. Wagenaar & van Koppen. Preston & Harris.2. 21 . information processing. 1961.2. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. the lack of replication of many studies.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. 1993). and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2003). 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. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 2005). 1997a).2. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. there has been an interest in driver personality. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 482). accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1996. Nevertheless. Underwood & Milton. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 2. 2003). the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. the picture that emerges is indeed grave.
Ochando. but that complex traffic 22 . 3).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.654-655. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. or the psychological support for intervention. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. ergonomics.2. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. eoncompassing engineering. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. transportation planning. anthropology and sociology. Indeed. in the field of traffic. 2002). or peculiar to. traffic and transportation. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. 246). predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.2. According to Rothengatter (2001).” (p. 4).) 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. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. psychology. medicine. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. in a Spanish survey. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. 2. To wit.
the study of cognitive processes. Peden & Hyder. Johnston. over the past ten years. 2007. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. Odero. Ergonomics has made a contribution. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. 2004. 2003. In the broadest sense. Wilson. as well. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. the road environment comprises the vehicle.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. In a recent special edition. 1995. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. 2002). the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. surrounding environments and 23 . Stanton (2007) noted that. Garner and Zwi. in particular. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. 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 vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. the road infrastructure and other road users. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. 24). which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 1997. Hyder & Peden. 1158). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. 2000). Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction.
Theories and Models In attempting to understand. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Neerincx & Schriebers. predict and modify road user behaviour. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. 26).tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Stanton & Young. “This school of though. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. 2001). Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . 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. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001).3. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. error and cognitive modelling. 2006. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2004).3 2. 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. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. particularly the notions of mental load. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. though. Noy. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Jannssen. Increasingly. 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. 2. 1997.
but for the purposes of this thesis. On the other hand. 2000. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. or accident-causing behaviours. this may be due to 25 . p. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. p. A-18) Often. 1995). 1985).3. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. To a degree. Reasons for this are likely several. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. whether theories should explain everyday driving. Healy. 2. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. In traffic psychology.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 2005). Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 1969).. or both. 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.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 2005. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. many models have been proposed. in traffic psychology. often in mathematical form.
2002). I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. avoid obstacles. Rothengatter. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. and most of the time is not especially influential. risk adaptation theories. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. 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. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. feel in control. 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. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. 2004. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. minimise delay and driving time. cognitive. Instead. and emotional determinants.the imprecise definition of concepts. 2005). attitudes. 26 . motives and personalities (Robbins. perceptions. 189). For over ninety years. given the complexity of human behaviour. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. 2. Notwithstanding these difficulties. etc.3. enjoy driving. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. social..
the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. conscientiousness. aged 16 to 29 years. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. 2000). McRae &Costa.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. 1979). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. 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). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. for instance. but not occupational accidents. 1990). In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. aggression. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. anxiety and driving anger. However. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. 1995. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. neuroticism. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . irresponsibility and driving related aggression. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. According to Rothengatter (2002). Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. 1980) and other safety outcomes. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae.
The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual.finding. weight and perhaps even intelligence. during and following the war years. occupational and otherwise. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. personality. found first that the frequency of accidents. λ.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”.3. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. p. 1920). ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it.3. his or her accident proneness. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. Research by board statisticians. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. sensori-motor skill. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.152). If each individual has a unique λ-value. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. West & French. but persists today. in certain cases. p. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. According to Haight (2004). 1962. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. just as one can meaure height. “irrespective of environment. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. the average number of accidents. 2. 1993. 290). 1984). or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. In 1917. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.
more probably psychological (p. 422). Scores on the λ dimension. 1956). noting that. made an assumption that. 1991. but did not take into consideration whether. 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. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. subjects reported significant. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. “Because crashes are so infrequent. however. 2004). 2004). Johnson (1946). Farmer and Chambers (1926. produced a positive. perhaps physiological. in traffic or when playing 29 . but very low correlations between accident frequency at work.out what that value is. by devising clever tests. 1939) and many others. in any sample. in successive years. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. at home. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. The accident-prone concept. None of the experiments. inadequate or irrelevant. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. inappropriate. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). in a Finnish telephone survey. 294). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. as well. 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. 195). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. p. 1997). 1929.
1998). 2.. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. sports and family settings. The concept itself is ill-defined. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1993). it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. Ultimately. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.3. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. 562).sports. Visser. therefore. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. 1980. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. Stolk. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . pp. Pijl. 8-9). it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. roadway. So. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 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.3.05. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.
For example. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. experience more accidents than others. A driver who enters a construction zone. crash barriers. in a study of driving on icy roads.4. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. albeit not crash occurrence.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings.4 Risk Theories Rothengatter (2002) has argued that a major factor in the growth of traffic psychology can be attributed to the law of diminishing returns with respect to engineering interventions designed to increase road safety. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. That is. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. substantially. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 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.. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. 2. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy.3. However. large earth-moving 31 . following their review of the literature. Elander et al. The introduction of divided highways. Wilde (1982. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. 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. in fact.3. 2.accident proneness (Chmiel. 2000). but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation.
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. in turn. according to the theory. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. In two separate studies. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. at least until the target risk level was reached. Initially. is if the level of target risk is reduced. 1988. Sagberg. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. McHugh & Pender. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley.” (Fuller. Ranney. Conversely. for example. 2001. Collectively. 2002). 1997). flat. Wilde. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. That is. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced.vehicles and warning flags. 1989. When others (Haight. 2005). The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. a driver motoring along a wide. Michon. 1986. according to the theory. 14). 1994. 2008. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. 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. Fosser & Sætermo. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. p. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this.
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.. 2008. Lichtenstein. 2004).target risk that people are willing to tolerate. 53). The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Fischoff. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Rothengatter. 1989. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. p. p. 2002). 1977). however. the community. 2004). Slovic. 2001. Also. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain.” (Vaa. but they are not defined in psychological terms. 1994. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. pay sufficient attention to risk. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. 223). “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. To the contrary. 1151). or the nation” (Brown & Noy. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. Corrigan & Coombs.. 2002). 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. More than any other driving theory. (p. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. Evans 33 . Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society.
Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. p. 2. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process.4. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 26). Summala. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 1987. 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. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. 81). zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. after a similar review. 92). Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. In addition. 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. In other words. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. O’Neill and Williams (1998). is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 2004. for example. Rather. At this point. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. and 34 . Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. or expecting. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.3.
If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). 1998. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. as a result. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. 1999).1). In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. for instance. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 2002.learn how to respond safety to. Reeder et al. much of which arises from personality. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Summala (1996. age and social variables. Keskinen. such as time pressure. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. 35 . in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. 2. A large number of studies show that external motives. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. Meijman & Roghengatter.3. On the other hand. Van der Hulst. Hataaka. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold.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. Glad & Hernetkoskis. and specific driver actions. Gregersen. 1996. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation.
Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. (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. at the same time. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 1996) Keskinen et al. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. but that is not 36 . a property absent within the task cube concept. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. for example. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. seemingly concurrently. 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. 15). 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.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.
2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Most of the time. Fuller (2000. 2000) 37 .sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. 1982. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. However. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. 2. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.g. high speeds. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. 252). Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities..3. affective states). unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala.1).
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. emotional state. 2. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Fishbein & Ajzen. and Keskinen et al. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. 1985. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . providing an account of the way in which attitudes. 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. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. time pressure). 1991). According to the TRA. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. however. Generally. 126). objects. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.Fuller’s theory has. p. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour.3. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.6. Since 1985. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. for the most part. 1985. 40). Two limitations have been noted.3. 2004. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. p. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories.
Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. “Even very mundane activities. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. however (Sharma & Kanekar.” (Azjen. 2. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 1985. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.3. 2007). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will.7.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). 24). According to the TPB. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”).2). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). see Figure 2. 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”). then. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 39 . To deal with this uncertainty. p.
It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 253). on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 1989) Within the theory. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. greater perceived control (i. 40 .e. In one study. when intention is held constant. 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.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.. 2003). p. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. or sense of self-efficacy. Further. 2002. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research.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. 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.
Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. 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.2. for instance. but after controlling for distance travelled. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. based on data extracted from police record forms. Attitude toward speeding. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. Similar to later findings by Law et al.1. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.4. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data.2).1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. 2.4 2. 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). roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. 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.In another study. Austin and Carson (2002). 2002). vehicles. used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics.
the vehicle (V).1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H). Richardson & Downe. 2000). 1997. Mahasakpan.4. Seow & Lim.. the road (R) and the environment (E). 1999).g. Law.4). More recently. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Nguntra. 2.2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1997) 42 .4.2 Process Models 2. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Swaddiwudhipong. Koonchote & Tantiratna. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. 1994). however. R. E and especially H factors.locations and settings (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. 1998.
are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. Within the generic model. By contrast. aggression). reckless lane transitions or overtaking.g.2. Therefore. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. on the other hand. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.2. it may influence crash risk through some other. gender. 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.. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. 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. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk..5).g. Personality factors within the 43 . when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. substance abuse) that. 283).4. more proximal variable. contribute directly to crash outcomes. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. age. speeding. on one hand. as well. Factors within the distal context include not only road. extraversion.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. sensation seeking. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.g.. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.
5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. As such. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. depression. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. risk taking. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. e. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. 2003) 44 . Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. sensation seeking. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.g.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors.g. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. psychological symptoms. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour.
moderating or mediating effects.2. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. 45 . 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.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation.4. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Tix and Barron.6(i). then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. for instance. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. If. 2004). Figure 2.2. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. Also termed intervening variables. called the outcome. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. In Figure 2. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. such that path c′ is zero. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 2006). M. 2003). 1986).3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.
or testing the moderating effect. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. and the interaction or product of these two (path c). or independent variable (path a). 2003). 1986). 46 .6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. or dependent.(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. variable (see Figure 2. the impact of a moderator (path b). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis.7): the impact of a predictor.
In turn. errors). sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. and non-professional students who were mostly students. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. psychoticism). he found that. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.2. Further. given wide 47 . verbal aggression.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. anxiety.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2.4. hostility. more relevant to the model he proposed. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. However. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. Using structured equation modelling. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. dangerous drinking). 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. anger). hostility.
. 1995. Arthur. Edward. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. 1920). 1919. personality model (Costa & McRae. 1993). 1998). in most cases. agreeableness (helpfulness. conscientiousness (dependability. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. sensation seeking). Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. Sümer. Sümer’s early work did establish the usefulness of the contextual mediated model and structural equation modelling procedures in describing and predicting the mediational processes that connect certain driver psychosocial characteristics and crash outcomes. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. for high-λ individuals. Bell. responsibility. McRae &Costa. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . (1993) and others. Greenwood & Yule. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. 2003. Tubré & Tubré. Finally. al.739). broad-mindedness). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. or “Big Five”. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. lapses. as recommended by Elander et al. sensation seeking patterns. Elander et. In a subsequent study. 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. 2005. Here. 2002. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. 1990) to a similar analysis. trust). applied the five factor.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Day. Watson. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence.
self esteem. navy. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. anxiety. phobia. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. 49 . 2. prior to the present one. Sümer. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. reported that driver anger. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. material loss. hostility. In other words. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. In another study. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). 225). Bilgic. Berument and Gunes (2005). Karanci. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. including perceived control. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. using a similar research design. air force and gendarmerie. They found that the effect of proximal variables.2.aberrant driving behaviours.4. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. have acted on those recommendations. optimism.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. Sümer. for instance. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement.
Williams & Shabanova..1. Campbell & Williams.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2003.g.5. 2003). Type A.8). Retting. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. Yet. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.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. Weinstein & Solomon. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .5. 1997. 2002. 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.g.. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.Downe (2007). Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. aggression) Safe Work Practices hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. Odero et al.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5 2. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e.. 1995). 2007) 2.
2001. 2002a. overtake dangerously. in many cases. Moscati. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. less emotionally mature. Harré. Vassallo et al. tobacco smoking. 1986). In fact. The former is less experienced at driving. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. Jehle. at least in part. 221). The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. However. Jonah. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. for these difficulties. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. the contrary appears to be true. drive while fatigued.. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. Billittier. 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. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. this is a reflection of lifestyle. Matthews & Moran. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. 2007). The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Bina. 1997b. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. 2002a. follow too closely. Connery & Stiller. p.
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states.39). particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. as age decreased. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. Ulleberg. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. (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. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. In the present study. and that young drivers. Stevenson et al.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. Vissers & Jessurun. on crash and injury occurrence. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. Similarly. 1999. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. 52 . since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 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. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). indirectly. 2002). it was hypothesised in the present study that. 2007). behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. Justification of age-related hypotheses.
it was also hypothesised that..g. without exception.failure to use seat-belts. 2004. Waller.5. Tavris. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. Chipman. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. darkness)” (p. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. for instance. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. 2. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Shope.4). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 129). Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. more often at hazardous times (e. However. for instance. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. 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. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. p.g. Monárrez-Espino. MacGregor. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC].2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. as well. self-reported injury would also increase. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances.1.. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. it 53 . for instance. “In all studies and analyses. as age decreased. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Elliott.
Lonczak. (b) females drive increasingly more. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. in a sample taken in the U. which typically took place during evenings and nights. to date. state of Washington. 1997. This is important. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. found that while male drivers. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. reported more traffic citations and injuries. 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.S. Lenard.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. worldwide. Welsh. 525526). While there is much of value in such an approach. Brown. 2001). they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Ball. Woodcock. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. At the same time. Flyte & Garner. for instance. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. attracted the most attention … Road safety literature and road safety measures have tended to concentrate on men rather than women and the existing literature on women drivers tends to compare their behaviour with that of men. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 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. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Dobson. 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.
Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. In a study of Dutch drivers. 2003). Lourens et al. Forward. and loss-of-control incidents. though. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. (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. indirectly.anger. McKenna. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. 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. 55 . commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. as per the traditional pattern. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. 11). on crash and injury occurrence. Laapotti. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. In the present study. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al.. Turner & McClure. evaluated their driving skill lower. control of traffic situations. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. 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. et al. In other research. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. Female drivers. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. were less frequently involved in crash situations. showing that male drivers were. on the other hand. 2006. In a subsequent report. just as they had in 1978. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic.
Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Levine. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.S. But.1. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities.2. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. lower rates of safety belt use. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. Summala and Hartley (1998). Haliburton. Garrett. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. On the other hand. Marine. differences in fatalities persisted. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. nonCatholic countries. Harper. To a large degree. Romano. for instance.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Goldweig and Warren. Schlundt. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.5. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. In one of the few studies reported. Corry. 2005). reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Lajunen.
shame-driven. hierarchical. Family centeredness. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. courtesy. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. 2000. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. respect for elders.2). prosperity. Strong relationship orientation. cooperation. peace. respect for knowledge. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. harmony with nature. in fact. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future.. indirectly. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. Fatalistic.. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. Karma. Indirect communication. hard work. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. They concluded that there were. Conscious of what other people say about us. However.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . 1999). cultural differences can be more subtle. While religious affiliation. Spirituality. on crash and injury occurrence. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. face saving. filial piety. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. respect for elders. polite behaviour. family honour. Education. In the present study. piety. humility. brotherhood/sisterhood. Table 2. prosperity and integrity. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. family ties. respect for elders. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Strong relationship orientation. religion. Roman et al. 1999). 2005).
as drivers become more experienced. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. and as such.5. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. in a given road and traffic scenario. Lajunen & Summala.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. etc. Hatakka and Katila. 2002). 1971). On the other hand. Keskinen. A large number of studies have shown that. 166). directionality of the effect was not predicted. increased experience usually.g. with different weather conditions. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. although not always. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.2. journey lengths. Laapotti. 2. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. 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 .. 2001).behaviour in traffic. As experience grows. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5. 1995. passenger distractions different vehicles. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. Allied to this.
but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. they organise knowledge about the driving process within an internalised mental model that represents typical characteristics of the traffic environment and the flow of traffic events. 59 . Internal models contain knowledge of route. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. 1996. 2001).9). or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. as individuals acquire experience. 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. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. in many studies of age and gender differences.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. Hatakka.by Keskinen. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. It assumes that. direction and position Figure 2. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. environment. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. Yet. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 2004). When using those at the top of the hierarchy.
Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e.. on the other hand. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. 1948. Female novice drivers. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. 1949. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. 2007). and especially young male drivers. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Young novice drivers.Laapotti et al. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. A simple measure of driving experience. Mintz. Ghiselli & Brown. for instance. was used in this study. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Peltzer and Renner (2003).g. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. 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. Brown & Ghiselli. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. 1954). 2004). Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience.
technical or legal changes relating to road safety. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when.. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. 2002a). First. Duncan & Brown. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. on crash and injury occurrence. for instance. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Elander et al. Second. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. indirectly. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). and type of route where. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. Wilde. 1993). (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1995. 1991). 2. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. Generally. 1984. 282). the miles they drive.2. Rothengatter.5. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . Pelz & Schuman. 1971). 1986. 2001. driving occurs (Dewar. 1984).effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. McKenna. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. it is accepted that the more one travels.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. the concept is much less well developed. In individual differences research.
Mercer (1989) showed that. (1986). 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. (1993). without correcting for annual mileage. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Towner and Ward. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Bina et al. Odero et al.hours than during the forenoon. although much research does not (e. 2006. 2003). Cairns. Lourens et al. 62 . This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. however.. Williams & Shabanova. 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.. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. Ferguson. In the present study. indirectly. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Christie. 2007. Justification of exposure hypotheses.. 2007). Teoh & MCartt. on crash and injury occurrence. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. (1999) have argued that. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and.g. 2007. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. in countries like the USA. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Yet. as defined by Elander et al. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. Evans (1991) and others. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes.
1999).10). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people.1 Locus of Control 2. 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. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. or internals. In contrast.1. 15).g. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p..5. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). or externals .5. she separated the externality dimension into two. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.1 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.3. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 1975. 2006. Stanley & Burrows. and second. 63 . Holder & Levi. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.5. Levenson (1975. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. 1991. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. Hyman.2.3. 1990).3 Psychological Variables 2.
10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Sinha & Watson. 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. luck. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.1. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. According to Phares (1976).3. 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.Luckner. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 64 . 1989.5.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.
Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. According to Brown and Noy (2004). believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 39). s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. 65 .More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. 1987). Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. however. but results have been inconsistent. 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. 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. On the other hand. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. French & Chan. 1999). If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. 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. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. In a subsequent study.
although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. (p. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . offences. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. Arthur et al. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. In a much earlier study. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. Gidron. 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. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 1260). The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. They found that. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. cognitive. 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). (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of 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. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. In an important study.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. On the other hand. although internality was unrelated to DDB. That is.
chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Hsieh. Japan. Canada and Japan. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. 122).3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions.5. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. 2. Italy. In very early research. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. (1991). Noting that Chinese culture. Their results. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Israel. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. and the USA.1.3. Noy (1997). is based on the notion that … luck. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. India. Germany. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. complexity and unpredictability. indicated that. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. France. as hypothesised. which is considered to be full of ambiguity.
Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). only Cheung. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. At the same time. Chinese of Malay extraction. Chinese and Indian populations. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. This was very true for the locus of control variable. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. Cheung. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. skill and ability. In very early research. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. To the author’s knowledge. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. 68 . 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. all internal characteristics. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. 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.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males.
1975. 2. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 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. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic.5. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. indirectly. Montag & Comrey. 1991. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 1997. 1995. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. on crash and injury occurrence. McMillan. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Weissman. Kovacs and Weissman. Niméus. et al. Cases usually 69 . Finally. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. (2003).2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 2005). 1975). Beresford & Neilly. without objective basis.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Ohberg.3. In the present study. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. 2007. 1973). while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. Fox & Klerman. Sinha & Watson. Gilbody. 1987. First.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. 2007). Özkan & Lajunen.
locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. Mendel. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. mental disorders and alcohol misuse. 1998. for instance. 1976. luck. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. In the present study. Prociuk. 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. indirectly. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). 1990. Very early on. Second. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. 1974). Henderson. on crash and injury occurrence. in a more detailed study. Firestone & Seiden. They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1962). in fact. assertiveness and positive emotion. including risky driving. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. and negatively predicted by extraversion. 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. Several authors. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Breen and Lussier (1976). 1997. it was 70 . usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. 1962). Selzer & Payne..
5. In a largely unrelated study. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. 2000. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 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. Wright & Crundall. 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. Filetti. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Chapman. Lynch & Oetting. 71 . learned disinhibitory cues. Barton and Malta. 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. including subjective feelings of stress. Malta & Blanchard. Demakakos. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Tzamalouka. & Darviri. 1999. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Richards. Koumaki. physiological arousal. Mizell. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Chliaoutaks. 2002). 2000.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Underwood. 2003. Wells-Parker et al. learned cognitive scripts. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 2. 2002. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes.3.. and deindividuation. Bakou. 2006). this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Deffenbacher.
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. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. through the use of self-statements. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. stress induced by time pressure. such as TAPB. However. Crowson. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Talley. 163). Houston. threat to own safety and self-eesteem.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Groeger (2000). Ellis. More recently. 1976. 1962). it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . Bettencourt. (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. as another. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. Schwebel et al. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. though. the display of aggression (p. lack of control over events. Snyder. rather than a cause of.
Deffenbacher. Narda. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Carbone. 2. Elofsson & Krakau. Frueh & Snyder.. 2001). Magnavita. impatience. 1981. 2002. Blumenthal. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. competitiveness. 1999. In the present study. 1999). 1985). Kamada. James & Nahl. Rice. indirectly. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. insecurity about status. 1998. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974).with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. (2003). of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Sani. Undén. Williams & Haney. Karlberg.6. that the total amount. Sato.6 2. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Lynch. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 73 . Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Kumashiro & Kume. al. Miyake. 2006). and specific content.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. Thurman. 2006. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Later still. 1999. on crash and injury occurrence. Bettencourt et al. 2000. McKee. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. aggression. Petrilli. It was also hypothesised. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses.
2 times more likely to have an accident than others. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). Karlberg et al. gender. driving style. however. similarly. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. West. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Consoli.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Chiron. Nabi et al. but not with accident risk. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. Raikkonen. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. category of vehicle. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. studied police officers in Italy. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. where Type A drivers were 4. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. In none of these studies. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. socio-professional category. 1989. for instance. 1990). In a correlational study of British drivers. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Nabi. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Chastang. 1979) and number of accidents. alcohol consumption. Zzanski & Rosenman. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). 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. 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. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. was driving frequency. (1998). however. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. age.
Of the four BIT factors. on the other hand. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Gender. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. Miles and Johnson (2003). then use of the Type A/B 75 . 2. In a subsequent study. 1977). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. Glass. At the same time. namely “externally-focused frustration”. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice).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. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. ethnicity. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. 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). all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. 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.6.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. as measured by the student version of the SJAS.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. In neither of their studies. hopelessness. In the present study. Similarly. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. 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. driving experience. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. Specifically. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. 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. To the author’s knowledge. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. At the present time. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. They argued that it would be preferable. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. though. although ethnicity. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . including gender. locus of control. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. on the other hand. that are measured by the BIT scale. 13). no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture.
1993) and. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 1985).hostile automatic thought. 1986. 2005. Nabi et al. 77 . freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence.. externally-focused frustration. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. West et al. Miles & Johnson. 2003.. Further. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas.
each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one.3).1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. with the addition of a third psychological variable. 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 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. 1B and 1C.1). In Study 1C. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. 78 . Then. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. aggression (see Figure 3.2). through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). In Study 1B. 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. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. each study explored the extent to which demographic. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis.
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. For the purposes of the present research.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies.2. overlapping and ambiguous. For each of the five studies undertaken.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). 1999). consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. 25). but not chance. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. In the present research. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 3. affective. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 3. Lester and Trexler (1974). a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. a thought process that expects nothing. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. a separate score for internality (I). such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. 1994). Weissman.2. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. cognitive.
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). Oetting. social alienation and paranoia. 1996).2. The effects of participants’ total aggression. 3. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 1957. hitting or interpersonal violence. Bergeron & Vallerand. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. 2005).expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. 2003. and. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. Lynch & Morris. Vallières. expressed through the presence of irritability. were also investigated. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Deffenbacher. Specifically. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . In the present research. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. frustration. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. through fighting.
the BIT score. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. 1998).(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. competitiveness. (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. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. and. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). characterised by excessive impatience.g. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . not allowing others to merge or overtake. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. 3.. hit or kill another individual. frequent lane changing. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. 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. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual..
within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). 3. while driving.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the influence of driving experience.2. 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. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.3. in Study 1A. In the resulting measure of this variable.. Then. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. 3. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. In the resulting measure of this variable. travel frequency. to the extent of inattention conditions. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.3 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. and.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.2. three demographic variables (driver age. (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.them (e.g. Then. 88 .
two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. In this study. In this study. the influence of driving characteristics. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. three demographic variables (driver age. three demographic variables (driver age. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Then. In Study 1B. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 3. travel frequency. 3. 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. Finally. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. Figure 3. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. Figure 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. Then.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. Then.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. travel frequency. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.
3. 90 . the influence of experience. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. In Study 3. 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. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. First. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. It should be noted that certain of the variables examined with the automobile drivers in Study 1 and with the motorcycle drivers in Study 2 were not included when taxicab drivers were sampled in Study 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Figure 3. This was justified for three reasons. and (b) taxi experience. Then. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.3. 3. Figure 3. Finally.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. In Study 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Finally. Then.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.
a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2. Third.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2 :Freeway urgency 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.1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1. 3.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H126.96.36.199 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: 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. Second.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H188.8.131.52: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1.Table 3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on 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: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.
3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. within a 14-month period. 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.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.5. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.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 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.Table 3.5 3.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.
Stokals & Campbell. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . 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. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. during a point to point trip. in the case of Study 3 participants. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab.. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.5.g. 3.5. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Stokols. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.2 Research Instruments 3. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Novaco. 1978). by postal mail. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.2.time when they travelled. Data collection took place within the taxicab. For inclusion in the study. In all cases. while participants were driving.
91) were found to be internally consistent. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 .” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.80. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. with a coefficient alpha of .” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).” “On a clear highway. to school or to an appointment with someone.2. Freeway urgency 14 III. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. as indicated in table 3.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. Table 3. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “While travelling to work (or to school).2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. On each form.” II. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. In a later study. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .
96 . it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. 3. References to the faster. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.5. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. 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. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”.2. 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. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
or 0. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. 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.3). 1996). 1993. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.” “When someone really irritates me.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. 2005. I may mess up someone’s work.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.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.2.3. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I get into fights more than most people.” 97 . I may tell them what I think of them.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. 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 might give him or her the silent treatment. if not. 1974).” “When people annoy me. 3. and five subscales measure physical aggression. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Table 3.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. 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”.2. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. Beck et al. Durham.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.” “If I’m angry enough. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.5. Of the 20 true-false statements. anger.5. if endorsed. Tanaka et al. verbal aggression. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. 1982.
71 to . Table 3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.” 3. Williams.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. Boyd.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. derogation of others and revenge respectively. 98 . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 3. 1997.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Cascardi & Pythress.2. Shapiro.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. with coefficient alpha values of . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.88 and .92. 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. gender. Three factors – physical aggression.5. age. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 1997. 1996).5. .88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. 5 = “all the time”).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. 2000).” “I want to get back at this person. Snyder et al.2.4). 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.91 for physical aggression.
AQ and HAT. upon request. BIT scale and AQ. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes.6 3. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires.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. After the briefing period. BHS. between the two forms of the BIT. 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. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. with an e-mail summary of results. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Levenson.6. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Study 1C: PIF. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. in random order.3. Levenson and BIT scale. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. BHS. In studies 1 and 2. 99 . Study 1B: PIF. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Levenson. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed.
2 Study 3 For study 3. BIT. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. as well.0. Levenson Locus of Control scale. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. For safety reasons. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. four female final-year undergraduate students. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. Over the course of the trip. analyses of variance (ANOVA). rel.5. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. 8. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. Data collection took place in taxicabs. The PIF was always administered first. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.3. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.5. AQ and Levenson scales.6. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. 2004). Taxis were flagged down at roadside. 2002). as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. aged 22 to 24 years. 100 . 3. Independent-sample t-tests. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. Two to four times daily. At initial contact. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. 13. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. rel.
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: “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 H3.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.Table 3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.
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. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).Table 3.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the higher the BIT level H8. the lower the BIT level H8.1: The higher the Internality.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.
ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.Table 3. When significant differences were observed. In the present study. In the present research. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. locus of control. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. 3. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.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.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. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. 2000). 103 .5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). For instance.7. Also. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative).7. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. 3. In the present research. In the present research. 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.3.3 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. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. if so. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. In the present research.7. 104 . 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. hopelessness. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. second.
Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. logistic regression.7. using LISREL. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. In the present research. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable.7 Structural Equation Modelling.7. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. That is.3. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. 3. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. SEM was carried out. 710). Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. 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. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. on the other hand. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.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. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence.
well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. 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. (1988). these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. p. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. in fact. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. including: (1) two absolute indexes. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. 1998). 1998) – presently exists. According to Marsh et al. the better the model is said to fit.. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. For Study 1C. 2006. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). Thus. 745). (Hair et al. In the present research. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne.
2006).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. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.10 indicate poor fit. 2006). the ratio indicates a good fit.7. 1998).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. 3.00 in which values greater than . the higher the probability associated with χ2.validation index (ECVI). 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. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 112). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. pp. one incremental index.7. 1998.7. Hair et al. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).1 Chi-Square (χ2). an insignificant p-value is expected. 107 . However. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7. 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI).7. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne.. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. Thus.0.7. the normed fit index (NFI). 3. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. and a measure of parsimony fit.
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. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7. Thus. the normed fit index (NFI.. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.7. an RMR greater than .10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.00. 3. 2006). 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. 3.7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.00 with value more than . Tanaka & Huba.7.7.7. Values range from zero to 1.00.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.00 with value closes to 1.00 being indicative of good fit. The index ranges between zero and 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. The index can range from zero to 1.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 108 . 3.00. Bentler & Bonnet.
750). the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. James. Although values range from zero to 1. considering its fit relative to its complexity. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. 3. 1994). “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.7. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Mulaik & Brett. Values range between zero and 1.7.3. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Like other parsimony fit indices. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. p. in this case. 2006. 109 .. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.7. It should be noted that.7. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.. In such cases. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.00.00.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. Browne & Cudeck. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 2006). means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al.
3. 1976. 1976).7. p. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . 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. 1956). It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. it is said to be positively skewed. 37). the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.05. 2000). When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.3. If the opposite holds.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. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. In this case. in this case. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution.7.
normality of variable distributions. Marcoulides & Hershberger. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. A commonly used guideline is that. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 1997). 2005. Barrett & Morgan. 111 .
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 Description of the Samples Age.1% 121 22. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.5% 6.1 4.4% 333 62.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.1% 34. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. 4. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Then. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.5% 27.6% 82 15.13 years (SD = 1.4% 146 14.1).9% Total 441 100% 45. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. with results of these tests reported in this chapter. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% 57.4% 269 27.1% 562 57. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). with a mean age of 20.9% 14. Table 4.1.1% 536 100% 54.6% 12.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.6% 15.3% 8.9% 23.55).
range from 18 to 29). with a mean age of 20.89 years (SD = 1. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. In Study 1C. range from 18 to 25).43 years (SD = 1.63. In Study 3.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. 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. with a mean age of 19. followed by Malay (27. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 1A. with a mean age of 20.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.35.25 years (SD = 1. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.9 per cent). range from 18 to 27). In Study 1B. 113 . A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.68. In Study 2. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. range of 18 to 26). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.53.5 per cent).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. Thus.
01 20.1.1 6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.3% of the sample.68 1. Table 4.5 114 . Johor or Perak made up 53.19 years (SD = 11.5 8.9 2. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.D.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 . Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.19 S. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. Table 4.2. 1. range from 23 to 73).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. Kuala Lumpur.4% of the sample.3 11.43 19.2: Age.63 11.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. SD = standard deviation 4.2 7.35 1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.65. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.89 20. The mean age was 43.3). Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.53 1.25 43.7 4.
8 11. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.1.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.0 10.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.6 2. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.6 1.6 100 4.1 9. As the sample was 115 .3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university. Table 4.0 7.9% of the sample. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.4 4.7 3.2 3. Perak or Penang made up 50.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.9 7.2 2.2 17.9 0.7 100 4.7 11.8 5.4).1% of the sample.5 1.8 9.1.4 0.5 14.
2000).2. 116 . A Cronbach’s Alpha of .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.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 4. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.5). 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. Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. 1978). the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. In the present research.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.
749 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .786 .720 .827 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .904 .740 .810 .824 .811 .890 .881 α .739 .720 .808 .887 .754 .703 .774 .910 .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 .735 .817 .714 .784 .718 .701 .742 .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.781 .798 .747 .711 .741 .Table 4.727 .788 .733 .702 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .756 .727 .783 .830 .808 .707 .782 .737 .738 .715 .734 .906 .782 .730 .740 .772 α .
1985). with minimal error variance caused by wording. 205).2. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.80 or above). Byrne.804 Study 1C .08 to . 118 .80. 1998).807 . RMSEA values less than .801 .916 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.929 .4.811 . The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 1998).953 . Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.802 4.857 . In Study 3.808 Study 2 . only Form A was used. depending on which is used (Byrne. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.807 Study 1B .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.806 .800 .6. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.10 indicate a mediocre fit.05 indicate good fit. it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 1998.804 . values ranging from .804 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. 1998). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.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 .805 .2. and those greater than .876 . 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.903 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. Table 4. 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. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.803 . more than .958 .
047 .7.00 1.000 . RMSEA values in each case were less than . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. the higher the goodness-of-fit). If the value of CFI exceeds .070 . 4.2.100.00.00 1.97 1.00 1.96 . 1992). it is possible to have negative GFI. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.098 .92 1.98 1.90.097 .99 . As shown in Table 4.00 .00 .024 .00 (the closer to 1.92 .054 .00 .00 1.92 .000 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 1.96 .91 . externally-focused frustration.089 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.00 .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 .097 .93 .99 .97 1.96 .00 .99 .99 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .3. indicating good fits.98 .077 .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 .000 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.91 . Table 4.00 1. and destination-activity orientation.00 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.90.061 .000 .00 1.96 1.98 1.97 . freeway urgency.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.98 .000 .00 .000 .074 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .048 .95 1.99 .00 1.000 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all. A third statistic.000 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.
indicating good fits (See Table 4.95 .93 .4.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.95 1.92 .93 .96 .085 .3. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).92 .096 .083 .90.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .93 .98 .93 .93 .95 .030 . RMSEA values were less than . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).058 .000 .063 .081 . Table 4.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .96 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I). anger (ANG).091 .96 .97 .93 .2. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.96 .92 .00 .99 .91 .91 .073 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.085 .2.071 .081 .3. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.98 .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers).8.91 .99 .93 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 . verbal aggression (VER).059 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.100.052 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.
97 .90.96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.94 .089 .93 .99 .98 . RMSEA values were less than .97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.96 . Table 4.96 .(IND).081 .10).98 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.94 .90.95 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 .98 .100. RMSEA values were less than .081 .98 .058 . derogation of others and revenge.073 .97 .96 .9).98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .083 .088 .98 .070 .98 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .098 .047 .97 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .92 .095 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.97 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .2.090 .088 .98 .97 .98 .096 .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 .92 .98 .025 .95 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.098 .100.97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .055 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.97 .92 . Table 4.070 .98 .3.
099) 1. 2006).323 (.280) -.106) 1.805(.126(.140) .875(.140) -. Table 4.280) .094 (.241(.280) .280) .409(.280) .022 (. 1997).140) . values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.332 (.280) .280) .246(.297(.140) -. 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 1.140) . Table 4.140) 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 .085 (.280) -.107 (.085 (.560(.410(.280) -.140) .280) -.297 (.278(.069) 1.179(.154(.140) -.085) 1.099(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.120) 1.05).010 (.179(.719(.351 (.105 (.140) .192) 1.091(.195 (.203(.186) 1.428) .278(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) . In all cases.204(.140) -.140) -.280) .057) 1.511(.280) .183) 1.146(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -.140) .280) .280) -.403(.560(.034 (.183) 1..656(.191) 1. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) .280) -.099(.126(.140) -. 2005.192(. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.582(.280) -.085) 1.280) . Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.297(.3 Normality.064(.4.280) .080(.353(.102) 1.190) 1.409(.140) -.052) 1.239 (.226 (.962 (.280) .408(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.356 (.140) -.920(.082 (.280) -.453(.064) 1.091(.020 (.331(.037(.280) -.140) -.091) 1.107) 1.379(.188(.140) -.260) .256 (.219 (.099) 1.11: Normality Tests.140) ..064(.
306) .024 (.719(.052) 1.359 (.913(.306) -.153) -.186(.153) -.300(.799(.153) .812(.306) .948(.426) .417) -.417) -.959 (.435) .209(.219) .277(.435) -.370(.156(.110 (.130(.962 (.306) .138(.210) .210) .306) -.978(.327 (.153) .629(.153) .503(.324(.244(.219) .210) .106(.142(.443(.264) .469) 1.537(.417) -.153) .210) .030(.051) 1.120(.219) .306) -.210) .640(.153) 983(.128 (.979(.293 (.417) .360) .414(.187) 1.451(.223 (.106(.064) 1.210) -.417) .219) .533) .392(.852(.101) 1.295(.423(.715(.131(.053(.911 (305) 1.317) 1.847 (.338 (.153) .841(.822 (.266 (.919 (.417) -.247) 1.160 (.435) -.366(.138) 1.154) -.915(.153) .084) 1.007(.210) .259) .435) -.279 (.214) 1.986 (.994(.435) -.219) -.052) 1.006(.321) 1.913 (.713(.099) 1.417) .306) .157) .210) -.807 (.265) 1.153) .354 (.417) -.219) .210) -.106 (.884(.276(.306) -.306) -.973(306) .297 (.070 (.219) -.147(.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 .360) .153) .001 (.510) 1.360) -.270) 1.306) -.219) -.681(.003 (.153) .435) -.153) .195 (.210) .417) -.053(.962(.417) -.210) .102) .100) .360) .276 (.478(.153) .359 (.057) 1.098) 1.467(.088 (.417) .567(.236(.135) 1.104) 1.022 (.497(.306) .852(.435) -.567(.051) .Table 4.362(.048(.435) -.147(.805 (.540(.256(.417) -.271(.952(.267) .113 (.972(.375) 1.501(.024 (.159(.062(.463(.198(.247) .022 (.366) 1.098) 1.11 (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 1.011 (.940(.153) .128) .
if so.13). 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. column c). Table 4. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.4. However. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.4 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. with 184.108.40.206: 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. 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. For motorcycle drivers. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. injury occurrence was much higher. column b). column a). 124 .3 per cent being hospitalised.
involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 . male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4.
5. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. and destination-activity orientation. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.15 shows means. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.17 shows means.05).1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).05). externally-focused frustration. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.16 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. in Study 1B. However. Study 1C. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others. 126 . All these correlations were significant (p<. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Study 1B.05). Also. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Table 4. freeway urgency.5 4. crash occurrence and crash injury.
340** .416** 1 .471** .442 1 -.08 2.482** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .316** .147* .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .388** .15: Means.247** .45 6.435** .376** .553** -.44 4.544** -.69 24.476 .280** .345** 1 -.155** .3455 .625** .804** .78 .152** .818** 1 .22 3.516** 1 -.942** 1 .201** .513** .209** 1 .434** .D.23 2.391** -.339** .202** .2691 6.716** .376** .5 5.533** .64 7.396** .191** .562** -.88 7.58 .96 19.76 3.246** .57 4.231** .306** .342** -.901** .00 165.036 .405** .186** . 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.239** .147* -.97 43.278** .749** .Table 4.566** 1 -.211** .371** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.218** .129* .662** 1 .52 34.04 26.027 1 .381** .
540** .369** .376** .816** .516** .271** .279** .039 .338** .55 9 21.Table 4.602** 1 .445** .331** .91 15 27.067 -.051 .48 5.286* .213** .355** .298** .542** .324** .225** .43 12.358** .443** .84 5.847** .816** .178** .418** .584** -.103 -.401** .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 .363** .69 8.275** .06 3 2.00 14 19.964** 1 .172** .153** .491** .586** .319** .276** .481** .85 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.200** .268** .84 7.82 7 13.335** .372** .16: Means.66 3.099 .45 5 87.341** .763** .140* .334** .505** .089 -.444** .921** .343** .176* .496** .779** 1 -.278** 1 -.162** .173* .393** .491** .448** .407** 1 -.669** 1 -.028 .4624 1 -.5695 .434** .408** .380** .5 6 17.762** .347** 1 -.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.56 2 4.378** .430** .310** .4960 17 .518** .355** .254** .312** 1 -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .353** .462** .489**.172** .731** .523** .697** 1 .555** .157** .342** .D.514** .97 4 4.366** .331** .028 -.463** .411** .071 .521** .9 12 71.403** .195** .013 1 .509** .400** .236** .3079 .14 4.213** .103 -.254** .147** .294** 1 .382** 1 -.53 19.25 8 18.440**.438** 1 .60 10 16.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .386** .254** .380** .22 4.213** .159 -.240** .855** .343** .9 28.587** 1 -.97 Outcome Variables2 16 .86 6.414** .48 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.9 13 46.515** .150** .003 .50 5.272** .461** .550** .167** .41 3.842** 1 .355** .520** .148* .688**.337** .452** .531** .
294** .185** .390** .261** .278** .366** .183** .151* .385** .31 3.167** .270** .095 .338** .137* .110 .17 -.101**.402** .150* .306** .530** .038 .17: Means.434** .501 .148** .305** .78 8.343** .235** .17 -.270** .310** .296** .324** .103** .340** .52 7.70 1 2 4.181** .387** .383** .64 -.281** .67 7.076 .139** .307**.379** .221** .191** 1 3 .349** 1 16 67.354** 1 5 88.465** .402** .069 .7 28.241** .277**.281** .277** .749** .7 -.745** 1 7 13.428** .016 .263** .286** .141* .106 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.725** .268**.856** 1 17 43.245** .368** .186** .37 6.370** .747** .862** .166** .192** .264** .895** 1 13 26.11 12.446** .120 .404** .246** .151* .70 8.506** .838** .454** .298** .082 .191** .296** .377** .355** .412** .356** .345** .196** .97 -.296** .218** .230 .178** .258** .095 .422 -.222** .199**.219** .003 .81 5.85 19.395** 1 11 65.209** .109 .210** .378** .314** .348** 1 6 16.235** .31 -.86 -.216** .192**.422** 1 9 22.588** 1 14 20.423** .735** .392** .313** .508** .413** .D.9 -.227** .342** .03 -.364**.189** .241** .80 17.451** .202** .448** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.98 4.229** .291** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.254** .373** .424** 1 12 18.306** .304** .401** .531** 1 10 16.367** .221** .357** .131* .292** .259** .057 .288** .252** .00 -.804** .526** .271** .302** .502** .516 .534** 1 18 19.641** 1 4 4.81 -.199** .193**.254** .89 5.183** .202** .518** .456** .130** .49 6.592** .230** .251** .119* 1 21 .224**.8 -.292** .275** .05 -.162**.304** .308** .250** .265** 1 19 25.081 .189** .174** .91 -.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .075 .277** 1 8 19.320** .-181** .228** .224** .36 -.311** .38 5.275** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .150* .212** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .203** .18 -.278** .259** .545** .109 .343** .481** .484** .Table 4.476** .364** .051 .42 3.166** .58 9.615** .033 .323** .293** .228** .9 -.565** .210**.69 -.03 5.483** .70 3.183** .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 .230** .158** .226** .
freeway urgency. 1B and 1C. 130 . All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.5. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.18 shows means. all BIT subscales. 4. Similar to observed results in study 1A. and destination-activity orientation. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal.
323 23.200* -.30 .313** 1 .374** .043 .376** .941** 1 .880 .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .035 3.383** .314** .240** .18: Means.409** .269** .183* 1 .349** .264** .500** .621 3.535** 1 .150 -.251** .201* .371** -.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .122 7.Table 4.367** .428** .4966 1 .182* -.334** .081 8.212* .233** .317** .66 1.630** .50 73.55 175. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.415** .259** .179 7.418** .413** 1 .917 3.D.580** 1 .48 5.072 .111 -.025 -.5738 8.219** . 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.6803 .06 20.232** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .139 .14 27.413** .028 1 .66 5.876** .192* -.290** .356** .562** 1 .485 11.165 .325** .750** .167 .614** .226** .76 48.4683 .291** .758** 1 .
Differing from Studies 1A. As indicated in Table 4. 1C and 2. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. In general.19 shows means.4. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. 1B. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 132 .5.19. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. correlations between I and distal. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. However. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal. In this study.
025 -.054 .418** .013 .263** . 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 12.636** .197* .152 .245** .561** 1 .117 .149 .51 3.88 1 .45 19.030 .82 11.194* 1 .2000 .371** .166 .194* .271** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .864** 1 .067 .153** 1 .141 .31 8.19: Means.148* .07 8.151 -.42 66.167** .178** .749** .84 2.65 75.048 .604** .404 .15 32.070 -.10 1.040 .213** .039 .257** .182* -.156 .646** .091 .222* .54 11.286* 1 .156 .240** .172** .853** .213** .149 .721** .268** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .378** 1 .193* -.061 .32 3.150** .401** -.82 5.112 -.622** .229** .023 .254** -.521** .020 .018 -.643** .246** .128 .116 .114 .08 15.43 8.D.289** 1 .324** .023 -.74 15.373** .12 4.106 .235** .180** .275** .072 .13 3.121 .658** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .092** .872** .06 2.103 .588** 1 .807** .161 -.117 .072 -.338** 1 .091 -.177 1 .121 .576** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.060 .618** 1 .240** .109 -.05 3.236** .032 1 .171 .255** .0301 .235** .11 15.071 .32 7.165 .117 .120 .528** 1 .276** .99 10.454** .261** .218* .292** .35 11.443** 1 .816** .17 20.095 .060 -.Table 4.225** .204* .028 .234** .3 6.4 5.173* .147** .200* .
01 B=.095. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.1.080.088 p<.102.034.1. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.146. p<. p<. H1.01.01 B=.180. These results supported H1. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 B=.238.1).01 B=.315. p<.01 B=.172. p<. p<.04.117.229.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. but not destination-activity orientation. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1.01 Study 3 B=.4.063. p<.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<.6.01 B=. p<.1 through H1.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.202. p<. Table 4.01).01.041.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration.01. p<. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.125.20). p<. 4. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.120.048. For the destination-activity factor. p<.1.3 inclusive.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. p<.01 Study 1C B=. p<. p<.135. p<.01 134 .1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.095. freeway urgency.063.01 and Study 3: B=.4 was not supported. p<. p<. p<.1.278.090. Study 2: B=.01 Study 1B B=.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=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.
2.05 Study 1B B=.064.01 B=.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.22.033 p<.01 B=.087.158. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. These results supported H1.074.01 and Study 2: B=. 135 .019.01.075 p<.054.01.035.01 B=. Table 4.035. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.038.120. Study 1C: B=. p<.118. freeway urgency.059. p<.140.23 and Table 4.165.01 B=.21).091. p<. p<. p<.24. p<.01). p<.069.095. Table 4.2 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.01 B=.01 B=. p<.6.01 B=. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. Study 1B: B=. respectively). that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=. p<.
N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.06 19.88 28.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.Table 4.35 33. * p<.15 161.89 21.32 147.41 167.64 27.35 155.68 26.77 165.50 28.43 20.23: 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<.73 170.35 4.98 171.29 21.31 161.82 33.30 22.60 185.25 5.98 33.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.44 178.32 28.05.35 24.03 25.16 3.64 26.01.77 8.25 25.56 175.600** Table 4.52 25.82 168.184** 136 .48 171.92 157.
060** In Study 1A.12 154.05). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.05).39 19.00 14.25). In Study 1C. 137 .05) and about once every two weeks (p<. * p<. On the other hand.77 16. In Study 2.73 157.01). N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. about once every two weeks (p<.01).88 167. and those who almost never travelled (p<.73 24.Table 4.01).01). In Study 1B.12 161.01. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.52 3. 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<.29 15.14 15.06 8. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.00 16.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.01 14.01).53 17.24: 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<. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.61 165.06 160. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.81 167.05). 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<.
33 78.56 3.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.920 (N. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.68 20. Table 4.26: 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<. In other words.55 10.26).316 1.753* 38 48 27 20 77.74 77.31 78.05. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.S.55 73.31 2.80 22.Table 4. N.71 168.62 10.52 172.27 14.94 20.26 10. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. * p<. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.81 175.381 10.97 8.58 188.81 161. However.37 9.50 24.25: 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<.859 11.47 5.50 184.05.S. 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. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score. However.81 22.82 162. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.63 1. * p<. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .60 72. N.65 73.64 24.01.09 15. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.437 (N.89 20.01.528** In Study 3.S) Therefore.
1B. In this case. only H2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. In Study 2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. ethnicity and age – were investigated. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.6. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. In Study 3. Again.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. the lower was the total BIT score.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect.1 was confirmed. Contrary to the subhypothesis. 1B. only H2.1 and H2. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. 139 . Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.been predicted by H2. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. ANOVA results for age. however. 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. In Studies 1A.27). the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. For ethnicity. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. 1C and 2. though. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.
62.01 F=1. Study 1C t=3. p<. Therefore.98. Externality-Chance (C).27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. In all studies. p<. Study 1B t=2.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. N.01 F=.Table 4.01 F=1. In Study 1A and Study 2. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.01). H3.00.S.74.01 F=8.12. In Study 1C. p<.05 F=11. N.9. H3. however.53.2 were confirmed.01 F=19. 1C and Study 2. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.2 was confirmed.562. p<. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. p<.66. N.S.05).81.05. In Study 3.6. 4.68.05 F=4. p<.01 F=9. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.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.3 was not supported.56.01 F=2.S. Study 2 t=3. p<. p<.05). Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.S.05. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. male 140 . results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). N. N.44. In Study 1B. In Study 1B. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.99. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. t(250) = 2. p<.1 and H3. p<. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.
p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.01). t(299) = 2. In Study 1B. p<.01 respectively).941.05 and F(2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. t(120) = 2.490. p<. p<.05). 1B. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.527. E and P scores. 249) = 3. 119) = 5.05. In Study 1C. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. p<. F(2.01 respectively.05.05 respectively. F(2.566. F(2. In Study 2.05 respectively. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. In Study 1A. F(2.05 and p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. p<. 141 .041. 299) = 3. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05 and F(2. F(2. For Studies 1A. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.503. 1C.01).462.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 299) = 5. p<.05). post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 298) = 3.370.476. 298) = 3. 298) = 6.01.
that age influences hopelessness. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. 1B or 1C.2. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. 142 . 4. However. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.2 and H4. Therefore.2.079. H4. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.3 were supported. t(120) = 2. were supported.2 and H4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.6. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.1.2. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In addition. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. H5.1. in Study 2. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. so H4. H4.3 was supported. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.3 were not supported.01).Therefore. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.3.05. H5.1 and H5.2.3. p<. H4. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.1.3. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.3.
respectively).3.1. p<.254. p<. p<.1.01 and B = . internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.239. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and B = .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.01 and B = .3. 4. p<.6.01. p<.01 respectively). was not supported. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.354.4. p<. were supported.01.341.306. H6. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. 143 .01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. In Study 1B.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6.312.342. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. In Study 1C.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers.186. p<. were supported. In Study 2. p<.254. p<. Therefore. H6.371.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01.01 and (B = .2 and H6. 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 = . respectively). 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 4.28). p<. respectively).2 and H6.290. H6.
externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.4.200.S. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.275.01 Study 1B B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.157.151.05 In Study 1A.191. p<. p<. p<.418.157.05) but not for freeway urgency.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05). that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.01). freeway urgency (B =.05 B=.01 B=.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=.153. 1C and 2.191. externally-focused frustration (B = .05 B=.01).05).05 Study 2 B=. p<. p<. p<.349.232. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .254.141.01). p<.280.254.01). externally-focused frustration (B = . it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.01). In Study 1B.3 and H7. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=. p<. 144 .1. p<.415.05).287.01 B=.01).317. p<.247.151. p<. p<. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151.141. H7. p<. N. p<. Therefore. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. was supported in Studies 1A.099.01 B=.151. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.288. p<. H7.2.01 B=.01).153. p<.01 B=.349. p<. p<.278. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.01 B=.287. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . freeway urgency (B = .247. p<.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . In Study 1C. In Study 2. p<.280. freeway urgency (B = . p<. H7.01 B=.Table 4.275. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.01 B=.05 Study 1C B=.317. B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .232.415. the higher the hopelessness scores.
29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.01 B=.753. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of Control Influences Behaviour in Traffic It was hypothesised that internality (I) would have a negative influence on total BIT scores while both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. but not H8.2. p<.044. p<.239. With regard to H8.3.297.1. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.2. where only H8. that the higher the subscale score for I.006.6. N. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. p<. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. 145 .168.1 and H8.01 B=. p<.1.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. H8.1.S.01 B=-. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.4. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P. B=. p<.01 B=-. p<.077.01 B=. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.3. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.208. p<.339.2 and H8. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. Table 4.625. p<.05 B=.229.01 B=. Therefore.S.178.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. H8.336. provided support for hypothesis H8.388. B=.01 B=.01 B=-. p<. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. p<. p<.01 B=-. N. With regard to H8.315. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.01 B=.29). it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. N.
01 and F=8. F=4.05. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.2).Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.581.710. 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.704. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. =8. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. 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. 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.272. Further. p<.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4. p<. In Study 1C. p<. 146 . F=7.1).1).909.01 (see Figure 4.01 respectively (see Figure 4.
00 66. 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 4.05.05.282.6.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. R2=. multiple regression showed mixed results.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. B = .00 MalaysianIndian 70. in Study 2.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.444. F=4. Kurtosis=-. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT. p<. 1B and 1C.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.3). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 68.00 62. First. 147 .00 64.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. However.034.327. p<. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.033.
608.459. p<. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .4).463.070. Kurtosis=-.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. F=18. R2=. B = .371).01.3: 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<. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01.167.
p<. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.S. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.467. and t(250) = 2. 249) = 5. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. In Study 1C.01 t=2. In both studies. p<.S t=2.01 t=-. p<. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. and H9. 4.164.01. the H9.31).210. N.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.Therefore. p<.6.05 Study 1C t=2. p<.521.603.30: 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. With motorcycle drivers.677. t(300) = 2.480.S t=1. Table 4.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.780. However.187. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . N.1. N.820. p<.603. p<.2.690.01 (see table 4.05 respectively. F(2.01 t=4. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2.01 t=2. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.298. In Study 1B and Study 3. p<. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. however.S t=2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. t= . p<.05 t=4.032. were supported.30). N. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. p<. 1C and 3.05 t=.690.
S.01 F=2.S. N. N.01).S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.S F=10.01. 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 3.01). Table 4. N. N. F=4.564.432. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.01 F=. N.S. 299) = 4. F=1. p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=2. p<. N.804.155.S.05 Study 1C F=5.021.041.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. 150 . F=1.57. F=2. N. F=. 249) = 10.S. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. F=5. N.432. N.S.S.632.S.S. p<. F=2. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.05. N. N. F=2. 299) = 5.182.763.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.01 Study 3 F=1. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.561. N. F(2. In Study 1B.526.S. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. In Study 1C.521. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. N.398.422.01).077. mixed results were found. N.904.01. F=1. p<.041.01).567. mean IND scores of Malay. p<.629.31: 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. F=1. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. F(2. F=1.S. In Study 3.
the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. were supported. respectively.4. linear regression analyses indicated that total AQ scores predicted total BIT scores and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.3 and H11.1.32). Therefore. externally-focused frustration. were all supported. H11. freeway urgency. 151 . 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. In Studies 1B and 1C. The higher the total aggression scores. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. H11. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. 4.4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. H10. H10. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. however. VER and IND subscale scores. only H11.29). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.3 and H11. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.6. In Study 3.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. H11.2. was supported. H10.Therefore. freeway urgency. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way.
F=3.545.428. B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.380.5).438.370. 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. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.01 and B = .01. p<. p<.01 Study 3 B=.540.048. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. p<.S. Similarly.370. p<. B = .Table 4.01 B=. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. N. 1B.01. p<.01 B=.05 B=. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<.01 and B = . p<. and B = .229.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.235. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. the higher were total BIT scores. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01 B=.565.204. respectively. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.05 B=. and B = . Study 1C and Study 3. p<. p<. B = .881. p<. p<. p<. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. but not in Study 3. respectively. B = . p<. but not in Study 3. 1C. p<. p<.505.263.05 (see Figure 4.01 respectively. B=. Study 2 and Study 3.324. p<.216. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<.01.01 B=. p<. p<.121.01 B=.S. N.263. B = . p<.01 B=. Also.491.01 B=.387. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. B = .461.01 respectively. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.483.520.01.385. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01. However.01 B=. p<.183. p<.01 Study 1C B=. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.01.
p<.076.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.00 44.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.12. R2=.131.172.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.297. In other words. F=100.961.05.01.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.00 42.00 46. R2=.01. p<. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. Kurtosis=-.01.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. Study 1C and Study 3. F=81. R2=. The moderating effect of I was significant.003. p<.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.316. p<. B=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.6. and B=-. B=-.6. Kurtosis=-.516. p<.271. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .929. for Study 1B.362. respectively. 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.645.00 IndianMalaysian 48.100.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.
and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .01. 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=. B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.109. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.271.01 respectively. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. R2=. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.015. R2=.694. F=71. Kurtosis=.069.297.015. In Study 1B. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.507. p<.704. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.794.6. F=91. p<.369. respectively).387. p<.431. p<.360.088. Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=-.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.897.117. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.297.271. respectively). F=78. R2=.6).01. F=94. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. R2=.606.01.01 and B = . R2=. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. Kurtosis=-.12. R2=.757.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.01.
externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . that the internality.significant.2.01 respectively.7). it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.302.1. 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. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. H12. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. and H12. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. 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. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. Therefore.01 and B = .3. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. B = . p<. p<. and the moderation effect was not significant.
and about revenge F(2. H122 and H12.05.05). On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.343.6. 249) = 4. with the sample of taxicab drivers. Only H12. t(250) = 3. p<. F(2.3.01 but not on about the derogation of others.01. t(249)=2. p<. Also. 249) = 5.737.263. 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. 248) = 3.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<.01). that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.279. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.05).01.05.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.314. p<. However.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. p<. p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 4.885. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. 156 .
p<. H13.277. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01. Therefore. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<.Therefore.01 and B = . B = . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. H13. was not supported. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. p<. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.2.379.1. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic.01 and destination-activity orientation. H14. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. (that thoughts about physical aggression.192.01.394.01. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. respectively. 157 .413.307. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. B = .224.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. This means that. the higher were total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. p<. externally-focused frustration. H14. was supported. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. B = .6. p<. the higher the total HAT scores.1 and H13. This means that. freeway urgency. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.364.2 and H14.3. B = . were supported. B = .01. on total BIT score were also tested. was partially supported. 4.3. were supported. B = . that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.01. p<.
4.809.072). Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. p<. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01. R2=. B = . also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.911. F=55. Kurtosis=. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.8).188. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.002.05. 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. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.085).297. p<.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. F=57. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .297. p<.565. R2=.013.-554. 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 4.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.6. Kurtosis=. In other words.01.
B = .092).01. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.246. was supported. Kurtosis=. p<.475.026. was not supported.2. However. H15. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.294. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. were supported.Aggression was significant. 159 .207.6. B = . The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. 4. R2=. F=59.3.01. p<.1 and H15. H15. p<. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.33).16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. Therefore.01.297.
S.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S P.S P.S S N.1.S N.2.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3.S P.S S S N.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S P.S S S S S S N.S S S N.S N.2.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S N.S S S S S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S P.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S P.Table 4.S N.2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2.S 1C P.S N.S P.S S N.S N.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. S N.S S N.S N.2.1.S N.S S S S S N.2.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S 160 .S N.S S N.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S P.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 3 P.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
S 1B N. blank=Not Applicable N.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S 3 N.S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.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 H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.S N.S N.S P.S N.S P.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7. N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.3.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S S S S S P.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S P.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.S P.S N.S N.S 2 N.S S S N. P.S N.S S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S N.S STUDY 1C N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.Table 4.S= Partially Supported.S 161 .3.S N.S N.S N.S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.
S S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S= Not Supported. P.S N.S S S S S P.S 162 .1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S 2 3 P.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11. N.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.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.S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S N.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Partially Supported. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S N.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S S S N.Table 4.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.
BHS I. HAT I.068 .90 110.g.087 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F2.05522 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way. AQ I.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. F2. C. P. C. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. C.58 35.80 104. freeway urgency (F2). AQ.00126 . This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. C. F4 F1.102 . F3.93 .00000 .97 .f. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 163 . freeway urgency. 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. Aggression (AQ).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. F2.4.93 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P I. 4. F3. F3.00000 . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F3 F1. AQ. C.00111 . F3. BHS.00000 . Hopelessness (BHS). Externality Chance (C). P. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. P.045 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality.38 100. Study 2: motorcycle driver.96 .060 Note: Internality (I). F4 F1.7. F2. F2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F4 F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P). two were worthy of further examination.97 63.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.93 . Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. AQ. HAT Proximal Factors F1.093 . P. BHS. Table 4. e. HAT I. Hopelessness. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. 2002).34. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F4 F1.02 d. C. F4 χ2 49. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. P.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. F2.96 RMSEA .
Externality (Powerful-Other).043. . RMSEA=.045.10). Externality (Powerful-Other).42.=24.92) on accident involvement.5. . CFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.f.98).060.97. . goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35.96. An alternate model. 5.10). 164 .48.13. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.22 respectively (see Figure 4.26. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. values were: NFI=.043. but not as good as for C5. d. with path coefficients = -. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. GFI=.29 and .99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. AGFI=. For Model C5. RMSEA=.23 respectively (see Figure 4.3.=33. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.32. CFI=. ECVI=. To aid this discussion.92) on accident involvement.42. which are detailed in sect. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.35. of the BIT score. with path coefficients = -.14. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. ECVI=. For Model C6. d. For Model C6. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. .51 and PGFI=. Externality (Chance). C6.28 and .26. .02.97.96. RMR=. Externality (Chance). Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. GFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. . and PGFI=.97. For Model C5.94. RMR=.91. AGFI=.f.destination-activity orientation (F4).
63* .045 RMR=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.32* Externality (Chance) .f =24 CFI=.29* Aggression (AQ) .99 P-value = .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.58* .97 GFI=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.51* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. *p<. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.97 d.57* Injury Occurrence .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.92* Accident Involvement .79* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.
58* Injury Occurrence .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.29* Aggression (AQ) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .98 P-value = .02 GFI=.63* .f =33 CFI=.50* .39* .92* Accident Involvement . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.56* . *p<.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .77* .31* Externality (Chance) .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.96 d.060 RMR=.
F2.66). F3. F2. HAT-D.084 . Hostility (HOS). IND. HAT-P. HAT-R PHY. IND PHY. HAT-D.91 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HOS. Angry (ANG). F2.00000 .00000 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HAT-R PHY.084 .93 . HOS.80) on the accident involvement. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. ANG.080 .73 169. IND. HOS.66 153.10. VER.081 . 167 .f.In addition.92 .95).66 131.91. GFI=. freeway urgency (F2).41.13 respectively.91 . F2. HAT-P. F4 F1.=61. HAT-P. Verbal aggression (VER).00000 GFI RMSEA . F4 F1. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. ANG.00111 . IND. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. VER.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. HAT-P. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.078. F3 F1. HAT-R PHY.41 d. HOS. Indirect aggression (IND). IND. F3 F1. CFI=.35). HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.f. F4 χ2 108. HAT-D. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .65 and . F3. HAT-D. ANG. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F3. 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).91 . Aggression (AQ).94 169. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. RMSEA=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). ANG. F2. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. path coefficients = .00000 . ANG. VER. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. d.
058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .65* .63* Indirect Aggression .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.000 N=252 RMSEA=.82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.72* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .29* Hostility .95 P-value = .62* .91 d.41 GFI=.61* .58* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .80* Accident Involvement . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. *p<.83* .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.05 .078 RMR=.f =61 CFI=.66* .69* Anger .
C.=28.f.80 respectively (see Figure 4.65 and .4. F2. freeway urgency (F2). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.07580 .94 .12. BHS I.36). C.94. 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.f.7.95 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. Externality Powerful-Other (P). Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).06722 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.86 23 28 23 . F2. F3 F1. F4 F1. F3.98). RMSEA=. p-value GFI RMSEA I. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Hopelessness (BHS). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. CFI=.047 .33 33. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. Externality Chance (C). BHS F1.12).2 Study 2 In Study 2. d.047. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. F3. GFI=.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29.17631 .12 d. F2. F4 39.062 Note: Internality (I).94 . C. P I. path coefficients = -.058 . P.66) on the accident involvement. 169 . the participants were motorcycle drivers. P.
05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.047 RMR=.70* BIT4 .83* BIT3 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* Externality (Chance) .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.89* .f =23 CFI=.78* .88* Crash Occurrence .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .95 d.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . *p<.57* Internality -.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .99 P-value = .12 GFI=.
35265 .95 .06743 .13). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.f. C. F4 50. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. C. C. Externality Chance (ExC). P.f.82 28 . 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. AQ F1. AQ F1.95. F3. P Proximal Factors F1.20 and . CFI=. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. Internality and AQ. F3.40) on the accident involvement. I.061 Note: Internality (I). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.4. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.061. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). d. the participants were taxi drivers.3 Study 3 In Study 3. F2. F2.7. F3. 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. AQ F1. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.=21. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.59 17 .37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.39.22 23 . but not Externality. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. RMSEA=. C.93 . freeway urgency (F2). F2.97 .027 I.37). Hopelessness (H). P.079 Injury Occurrence I. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). 171 .00524 . GFI=. F2.95).03084 .94 . path coefficients = -.39 21 .
*p<.63* BIT3 .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .39 GFI=.061 RMR=.95 P-value = .74* -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.39* Internality -.95 d.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .20* Externality (Chance) .61* BIT4 .f =21 CFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .13 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .
(4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Therefore.4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. consistent with path analysis results.8. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 4. 173 . Table 4. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. and.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.38). 4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator.39).8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.
Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 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.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. where the 174 . behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4.40). Table 4. 1B and 1C. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.8.41).4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. in Studies 1A.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.
Table 4. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. 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.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. 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 . C or P and the two crash outcomes.
p <.837.663.993. Study 2: t(372)= -3.9. p <.05.01. 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. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.426.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. Study 2: t(421)= 7.442.01. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. p <. Study 2: t(372)= 8. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= -2.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 2: t(421)= -3. 176 .9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.162. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Study 1B vs.01. p <.01.665. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <.01. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <.Table 4. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.
Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <. 4.01.01.977.747. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6. p <. p <.837. p <. p <. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.9. Study 2: t(422)= -4. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(253) = 2.01.433.01.402. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. “freeway urgency”. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.687. t(253)= 8. Study 1B vs.775. Study 1C vs. t(986)= 7. t(986)= 5.186. p <.614.801.484. and to injury occurrence. p <. p <.211.861. and t(986)= 35. p <.01.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(421)= -8. Study 2: t(372)= -5.01. Study 1A vs.01.261. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. t(986)= 3.200. 177 . p <.9. p <.01.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. p <.577.01.01. p <.01.01. p <. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -7. t(986)= 34. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.01. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= -7. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. p <. t(986)= 37.704. 4.01.926. respectively. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Also.01.
t(253)= 11. p <.946. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.977. t(253)= 31.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. t(253)= 39. and t(253)= 37. p <.016. p <.01. p <. p <. 178 . and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(253)= 8. respectively.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8. Also. “freeway urgency”. p <.01and to injury occurrence.982.01.567.01. p <.737.881. t(253)= 35.01.
Elander et al. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect.1). Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. Often. Elander et. 1995. upon examination. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. 2. 1991).4. 1993. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 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. including gender. al. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. They found gender. 2002b). Evans. multi-factorial perspective. In an earlier study. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. (1993). freeway urgency. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.2.
the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. 180 . In other words. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. BIT. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. the proximal variable. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. hopelessness. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. is that factors interact with each other. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied.total BIT score and component scores. though. In the present research. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. Further. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. As a result. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. except with taxicab drivers. All too often. But findings were more complex than that. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. In the contextual mediated model. 1991). if different. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 220.127.116.11). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
In the present study. SD=131.7 months. SD=1. respectively).6 months as licensed drivers. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.5. Because of occupational demands.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.2 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.25 years.1. there are other possible influences. 5.63. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. respectively). and 36. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.53. 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. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. For taxicab drivers. SD=11.16.01years. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.3. SD=. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Of course.2 years. SD=1. They were also more experienced (266.1 months. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. 20. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. 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. SD=22. By virtue of their age and occupation. For taxicab drivers. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.hierarchy. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. Inclán. as well.
He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. rife with bureaucracy. perhaps due as argued earlier. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. 2003. along with selfpromotion skills. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. financial matters and social affiliations are made. Carment (1974) also found. however. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. 2005). Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. when compared to Canadian students. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. In an environment where career choice. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. influence peddling and status-related privileges. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. Devashayam.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). which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. spousal selection. were necessary to succeed. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. corrupt practices. The finding that Indian- 188 .
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. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 2002. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore.5 million in 1991 to 11. 1981). In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. including locus of control. as a result. by extension. where Cheung et al.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. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. 1999. an internal locus of control. 1998. Sendut.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India.8 million in 1996. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. 5. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 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. but two possible influences stand out. as a group. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and.5% annually from 9. and. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. Indeed. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007).3. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Nandy.7 in 1996. Salih &Young. 1999. 1999). 1966. Again. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55.
Miles & Johnson. 2000. 5. Lawton & Nutter. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miller & Rodgers.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. Oetting & Salvatore. 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. Nonetheless. 2001) In the present research. 2008. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . more recently.women’s friendship patterns. Huff. 2002. Jenkins. 318). there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2002). Clayton. Consistently. bringing them closer together in outlook. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. 2001. Dukes. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. 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. 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. 2003. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. by the enraged driver. feeling more frustrated at external sources. King & Parker. Lynch. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Parkinson.
Underwood et al. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Finland and the Netherlands. Deffenbacher. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. physical aggression. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility.conditions. Underwood et al. Oetting et al. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. With taxicab drivers. (1996) and Deffenbacher. on a journey by journey basis. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. 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”). Petrilli et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Parker. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Further. during such incidents.
would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. as well. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). The effects of aggression on behaviour. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. however. 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. 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 . in the samples studied here. That is. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. In essence. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. but not when they involved the derogation of others. the world and others). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al... 1997).strongly. Such responses. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). although still significantly. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. 2006). Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less frequent hostile automatic thoughts.
401). like any other mental task. 1987. or self-talk. 1995.e. It is moderated by cognitive processes. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). 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. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. Hochschild. were unlikely to believe that outcomes are determined by one’s own actions) were significantly more likely to report riskier driving patterns in traffic than were aggressive drivers with high internality scores. Meichenbaum. and particularly with negative emotion. but there may be more to it than that.. Language loaded with emotional content. Certainly. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. Downe & Loke. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. Generally. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 193 . evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. Similarly. 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. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1994. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. “in ergonomics. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. 2004.. p. Finally. 1977). has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. 1990. true to operant learning principles. 1979. Novaco. (2003). language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and.are determined by chance or fate.e.
Martin. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 1997). 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase.g. aggressive emotionality.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 2000. p. 5.Robbins. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Carretie. Stein. hostile automatic thoughts. and attempting to exercise control over. Performance (e. 2002. 162). 1999. Watson & Wan. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic.5. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Hinojosa. Dien. 1996. Trabasso & Liwag. 2002.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. 2004. Taylor & Fragopanagos.. In fact. MartinLoeches. Mercado & Tapia. 2005). As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 2000. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Making sense of. Lambie & Marcel. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Tomkins. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 1993).
or latent. involved in the analysis. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. EQS and AMOS. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. 2004. or independent variables. who in 1970. By estimating and removing measurement error. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. 2000). Structural equation modelling (SEM).. Gavin and Hartman (2004). Second. or dependent. 1998). First. Hair et al. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. 195 . 2006). a multivariate technique. 2006). The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al.434). Karl Jöreskog.. factors represented by multiple variables. p. explain criterion. According to Williams. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. and perhaps most important. 2006). including dependent and independent variables. 2004. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis.. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. SEM appears to be the only technique capable of examining a set of relationships simultaneously when the phenomena of interest are complex and multidimensional (Hardy and Bryman.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. Finally. When composing a model. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. In addition.
the comparative fit index (CFI). Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model.e. Hair et al.5. Therefore. 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. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. when assessing the fits of measurement models. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2004) noted that. Shook. Williams et al. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2006). (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. CFI. GFI. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. etc) 196 . It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. In the present research. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Ketchen. (2004) has been critical of most studies. as suggested by Hair et al.e. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. Shook et al. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Sümer (2003) added that.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory.5. and the root mean square residual were included. 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. SRMR. TLI. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices.
the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 5. CFI.g. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006. RMSEA lower than . be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. significant p-values can be expected. 1998. It is argued here that. we would argue.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al.5. At the same time. CFI and CFI) greater than . GFI.. 2001. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Hair et al. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. Md-Sidin. 2001. Sambasivan & Ismail. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson.. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Fit index values (e. 2006)..90. but there is little guidance in the literature as to what course of action should be taken when two models each meet standards for goodness-of-fit. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 1998). 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 2000).In the present research.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. Maruyama. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. As a general rule.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Structural equation modelling should. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.
1. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. two structural equation models. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. statistical. “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. as suggested by Byrne (2001).10) excluded the fourth factor. More importantly. In some cases. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients.soundness. 1C5 and 1C6. stating that. 158). If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. However. and practical considerations (p. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 88). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 .3). Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. 4. In the case at hand.7. destination-activity orientation. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Thus. There is some support for this position in the literature. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit.
42 11.Table 5. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.96 1.034 97.91 0.97 1. F2.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.99 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.98 0.02 0. AQ. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.045 0. P.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.97 0.02 0.96 0.97 0.499 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 129.97 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. 199 . BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. C.060 0. C. AQ. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.02 0.48 30. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. F2. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. 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.94 0.909 0. Injury Occurrence 35. P.
(2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Parker. it is 0. goodness-of-fit. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. farther along. By selecting Model 1C5. 200 . Storey. 2006. in particular. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. Hair et al. in this analysis. 2006).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. 1990. while for Model 1C6. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5.1).42. Schwebel. Kayumov. 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. they should be dropped. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI.. et al. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Nahn & Shapiro. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical.48. 1995. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. 1996). one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. For practical reasons. 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. Reason. based on the notion that each variable included may. Manstead & Stradling. However. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. but still acceptable. Sambasivan (2008) stated that.
with five distal factors (internality. externalitychance. The results suggested that the alternative model.28 respectively). .4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. freeway urgency. Evans.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .g. .34) and injury occurrence (r = . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.14. aggression.26. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.66). . 2003). In Study 1C. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.1). Distal factors (locus of control: internality. and hostile automatic thoughts).4.35 and . 1991. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.29). Sümer. 2001. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.28 and . externality-powerful other.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.5.35.45). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . crash occurrence (r = -. for automobile drivers sampled. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. externality-powerful other. 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.21). externally-focused frustration. via BIT. on crash outcomes. externality-chance.5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers Sümer (2003) pointed out that comparing the goodness of fit indices of several alternative models can help to clearly identify where lack of fit arises within a model. Rothengatter. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.6. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.5. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .
The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . had a better fit than other alternative models.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. on the other hand. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. Aggression.25). crash occurrence (r = .20) and injury occurrence (r = .24). 5. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. freeway urgency. 202 . externality-chance. Results indicated that the first alternative model. which sampled motorcyclists.41).23) and injury occurrence (r = . 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. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.5.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . crash occurrence (r = . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.65 and . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.55).4. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .
Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. externally-focused frustration. aggression). The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. had no significant effect on BIT scores.5. to measure outcome.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. their crash occurrence. externality-chance. via BIT. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with the sample of taxicab drivers. crash occurrence. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. freeway urgency. However. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. externality-chance. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.3).5.20 and . the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. for crash outcomes. 4. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. such as internality. externality-powerful other. 5. hopelessness.5. 203 .6. Distal factors. in turn and indirectly. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. as a result. Finally. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. had a better fit than alternative models. externality-powerful other and aggression). Results indicated that the third alternative model.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.4. crash occurrence. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. For motorcyclists. freeway urgency.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. for the sample of taxicab drivers. with four distal factors (internality.
With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.6 5. Further. chosen at random from taxi stands. 2005). by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.5. a total of five samples were taken.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. In the present research. 204 . that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 2005. 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.6. Sekaran (2003) points out. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. Huguenin. 2004). an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 278279). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. however. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. 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. To a large extent.
these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia.2 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. Study 1B: 100%.31.6% (Study 1A: 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Selangor. 205 . Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.55). young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.2%). Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Study 1C: 99.2% and Study 2: 99. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Since. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses.2).In Malaysia. with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.6%. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. as elsewhere. in Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. The most populous state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Table 5. Sabah.
6 5. Table 5. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin.000 1.2 (1) 3.004.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.1 (7) 8.000 2. 206 .3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.500 1.818.2 7.6 2.6 6.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.6 0.674 1.5 (8) 3.000 215. For that reason. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.2 3.2 (5) 0.503.4 5.7 (14) But.9 9. In both cases.100.000 1.880 3.9 (3) 2.000 3.150.396.6 (10) 7.5 (4) 4.200.286 1.9 (9) 7.3 (12) 11.0 4.2 (13) 11.8 6.188 1.260. Not all states have the same number of drivers. Table 5. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.000 Per cent of national population 26.887.300.0 12.576 2.807 733. in this case.0 8. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.7 (2) 2.2 (11) 12. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.Table 5.2: 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) 7.000 2.387.500.8 (6) 6.2 11.
606 24.251 324.026 10.725 70.93 9.85 1.76 3.428.137 698.98 0.617 10.50 29.93 0.041 92.05 2.496 187.19 3.600 135.768 6.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.104 6.84 11.75 4.735 165.27 14.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.34 11.064 9.13 6.92 25.55 7.467 25.91 2.588.163 10.70 3.003 10.230 266.029 273.34 3.36 8.24 2.28 3.19 7.20 12.785 393.88 3.45 9.144 12.198 156.46 8.490 525.43 2.89 3.90 5.16 2.37 3.561 1.920 181.22 17.35 4.97 12.63 207 .88 2.70 12.24 0.96 3.212 39.19 4.Table 5.093 5.4 4.68 7.170 13.635 1.774 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.
76 3.38 4.606 24.28 3.20 15.02 10.026 10.35 4.75 5.133 705.112 347.63 13.768 6.029 273.88 3.561 1.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.958 % 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 0.22 3.59 1.15 5.63 11.992 776.725 70.59 12.79 13.48 1.74 208 .37 3.33 4.92 25.38 0.46 5.66 11.93 9.64 2.49 12.283 770.27 14.93 7.467 25.144 12.679 90.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.02 7.989 6.43 2.170 13.104 6.722 255.064 9.656 821.Table 5.10 9.288 444.88 2.36 8.82 9.221 36.003 10.64 1.617 10.856 310.45 2.03 4.995 233.305 276.46 14.727 161.615.98 0.14 7.4 4.212 39.
participants came from – or.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .903** . At least on these dimensions. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . 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.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.824** . it can be argued that they were.3 and 5. at least.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.Table 5. was representative of a high risk driver population.814** 1 .4. 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.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. Table 5. it is possible to say that sampling. Of course.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. in studying driving behaviour.g. Elander et al. e. however. Again. Hatakka. as in other psychological research. accident distributions by age.. Keskinen. Much important data is available in official statistics. 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. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 .6. demographic factors. The problem. attitudinal factors. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. unless the variation within the group is very small.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. 1998. 2001). 1979). the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. Rothengatter. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. However. 5. 296). accidents. Exposure. the data has to be disaggregated. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. 1998. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. violations and accidents should be linked together.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002).
211 . Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. Visser and Denis (2004). the longer the time period for data collection. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. Yet. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.. in studies of driving behaviour.g. 5. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. 1996). In future studies. blood pressure. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 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. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. muscle tension. 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. In the present research. therefore. The assumption.6.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al.g. Particularly. as well.. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. for instance.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. combined interview and observational methods. though. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. 13). 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. the more information is lost through memory lapses. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or.
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. Unfortunately. 1997. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. individual standard. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . and the hypothesis (H2. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 5. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Second. 1971). Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. as well. Mercer. 1999). 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.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. First.In the present research. 2002). and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s.6.
“Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 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. Some of the inaccuracy in the use of distance travelled as a driving frequency measure can be simply attributed to random or systematic errors in prediction (Elander et al. 1973. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. 121). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 1993). Often. but because they are inherently easier to think about. 2008). 1974). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 1993. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. in other words. Slovic & Tversky. But. eventful or recent. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. but not always. because they have taken place recently. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 2004). In much the same way. 181). 213 . on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. the problem in relying on the ease with which event can be retrieved from memory for determining their likelihood is that our perceptions cannot necessarily be counted on as an accurate reflection of reality. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 2002). 1982). 2003). p. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 2003.. Kahneman. although this has not been firmly established. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. Wood & Boyd.frequency that were used in this research. frequency or distribution in the world (p. Specifically.
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. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. Of course. where driving histories generally include lengthy.In the Malaysian environment. Deffenbacher et al. Similarly. on one hand. 1991). during periods of low traffic volume. in their studies of roadway aggression. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. 2000). 2001) . traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances.. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. (2003). it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. Finally. Sansone. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. asked participants to record the time of day. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. for example. 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. road conditions. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research.
but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models.g. are testable and contain no contradictions. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. Further research is required. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 1985. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. In the present research. 2005). Ranney. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 1997).1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. 2004). have high information content. In addition. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. It was felt.7 5. 2002. during the study design process. selfreported measure used here. 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. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. 2005). collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. there is little disagreement on the importance of travelling frequency as a variable in driving safety but little consensus on the best way to deal with methodological problems associated with its measurement (Evans.. 1991). 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. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 1994).7. To summarise. Summala. 2004). 5.studies undertaken. Michon. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . Good theories are simple.
The answer to this question is possibly yes. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . if they are modest in ambition. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. Grayson (1997) agreed. or represent processes. check facts. at times. on the other hand. 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”. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. in particular to structure data. stating that. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. 32). 1997. often in graphical form (Grayson. Throughout the development of traffic psychology. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p.patterns of relationships. 94). Hauer (1987). 294). Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. p. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. The answer is probably not. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology.
In the present research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. In this case. 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. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. hopelessness. 95-96). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. who argued that. and if they are resultscentred (pp.3). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. Yet. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. In 217 . This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). for instance. For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. 304). 2. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour.
for instance. 2005) were included as distal variables. anxiety.other studies. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. Kerlinger (2000) and others. conscientiousness. 2003). … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. While the present research 218 .. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. According to Ranney (1994). agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. With several exceptions. while still very much a model and not a theory. psychoticism. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. 5.7.3. as defined by Grayson (1997). The contextual mediated framework. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. openness. crash-free driving. sensation seeking (Sümer. much current research. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. 2.4). provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving.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). depression. not on everyday driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. extraversion.
BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. On the other hand. Conversely. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. They argued that locus of control. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. Within their proposed conceptual framework. 219 . Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. or at least to react more slowly. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. 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. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.did not test any of those theories specifically. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. It is possible that drivers with an internal locus of control will rely more on their own skills and abilities while they are driving and. As a result. no matter how reliable a safety device. Following this reasoning. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does.
2004). these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. Gidron & Davidson. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions.7. 220 . 1996). 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. 2002. Specifically.3 Driver Selection. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. once identified.In the present research. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. could be screened out. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA.. task capability (Fuller. 2005. scarce resources for screening drivers. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 5. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. 1997. 1982). external locus of control and hostile attributions. Christ et al. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. 1996). Typically. al. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. Summala. though.
At the same time.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.7. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. or legal intervention. 1). education. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1957).4. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. From this has emerged the growing 221 . the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Slinn. for the last fifty years. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.4).5. and machines are highly intricate (p. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. 1957. Unlike 100 years ago.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. teams of humans.7. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. World Health Organisation. 1961.4. 5. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.
roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. 2005). Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). (Bishop. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler.6). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. In the case of LKA. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. or the adaptive automation concept. 2001). Maggio & Jin.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Sadano. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. At the same time. 2003). 222 . is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 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. 2001). Suda & Ono. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Murazami. Stough. depending on environmental factors. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications.6). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. These have been applied to in-car. for instance.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Herzog. 2004. was associated crash outcomes. 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. 1999. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. traffic 223 . Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. 1993. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. 1998). A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Brown & Noy.6). Fountaine and Knotts. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. Ulrich. Parsons. changes in traffic speed. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. in particular to pursue environmental. Black. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 2003. Richardson & Downe. Tassinary. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 1997). Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. 2000).with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. The present research also found that freeway urgency.
Dietze. 1996. 224 . questions of alternative urban structure. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. Probably. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. however.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. 1996. 309). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. p. and whether this information varies according to the situation. Proctor. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. 1992). inexperienced drivers. 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. 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. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. 1991). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. however. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. journey purpose or other human factors.
generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. and likelihood of. Hi H 1. 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.Table 5. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). etc. keeping. lane road conditions.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. infrastructure. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. 225 . unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. “rumble strips” in expressways. – 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. transitions for.1. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. 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. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow.
to in-vehicle display terminals. are travelling. H 1. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. 226 .1.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications..(continued) H 1. the host vehicle. point. including those in adjoining lanes.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. the systems intersection modification. than the safety standard. generally pilot”. ACC systems provide modifications. t-junctions and vehicle displays to warn the feedback to the driver when pedestrian crossings that will speeding driver of impending that speed is being exceeded trigger high-illumination intersections. Radar. traffic lights) safe.1. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. 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”.
has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space.3 vertical displacement. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. pinchpoints and gateways or arches.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1. “Speed tables”. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. Such devices include chicanes. 227 . at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. in-vehicle biofeedback aesthetic applications – integrated traffic control devices – systems to measure beautification of median and centres – Systems that allow and feedback levels of driver roadside areas with for synchronised timing of arousal. 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. H 1. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. environment and other frustrating stimuli.
1. weather-related road conditions. safety messages.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. notification of construction ahead. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. at least. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. This information allows drivers to avoid or.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. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. 228 . H 1. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.
(b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. 73). 229 . Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. 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.5. It suggests that. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.4. to some extent. The present research suggests that. however. teachers or the police. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.7. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. 2001). like community centres or places of worship. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education.
(2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. 1030). N6). Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah.4. that “Of these three approaches.4 Enforcement Howarth and Gunn (1982) noted that attempts to improve road safety are generally of three types: (1) ergonomic and engineering measures to improve the physical environment. p. such as visibility of enforcement. 2007. They also stated. legal measures change least often. was studied in a 230 . however.5. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. Second. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. First.7. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. The bias of false consensus. or an internal locus of control. p. 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. 1978. from the findings of the present research. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. 265). evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications.
sample of drivers by Manstead. Parker. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. By doing so. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 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. The TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions which in turn are influenced by the individuals’ positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour (attitudes). on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. on the other. Azjen & Fishbein. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. 498). opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 1992). Stradling. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 2001. 1991. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. Ajzen.” 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). after all. is allowed to occur in a Just World. 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 . Reason & Baxter.
Similarly. or not adhere. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour.drivers’ decisions to adhere. to traffic regulations. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). 232 . an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not.
Wállen Warner & Åberg. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 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.g. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. gender. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. In the present research. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. when risky. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. Iverson & Rundmo. ethnicity..CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Sümer et al. 2002. 2005. it was concluded that driver experience. In doing so. locus of control. age. hopelessness. Sümer. Results have indicated that. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. A contextual mediated model. as proximal to the crash outcomes. as expected.. 2003.
the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. Harrell. Montag & Comrey. 1973). like Brown and Noy (2004). although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule.g. and accident risk (e. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. 1974). This is Of the variables studied. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. In most cases. that when faced with competing models in safety studies..In the current literature. or external locus of control. 2003). In the present research. task capability (Fuller. 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. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. as well as statistical grounds. it is argued here. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. 1987). 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 1986. 1995. the best fit usually implies the best model. Hoyt. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . However. 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. 1982). one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. Further..
including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). However. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. 2005.. Several authors (e. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. cultural anthropology. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. in combination.aggression were observed. 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. 1998. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions.g. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. 2002) have noted that this is a hallmark of the traffic psychology field and it is concluded here that studies of the manner in which human factors influence safety behaviour require a range of constructs pulled from various disciplines. they 235 . as well. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. Rothengatter. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. Huguenin. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. For example. Groeger & Rothengatter. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. road engineering and ergonomics.
In the present research. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. 236 .form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 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. 313). management. educational and enforcement spheres. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. Indeed. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere. injuries and death. 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.
(2003). R. 38(5). H. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. H. Puzzles & Irritations. 10(2). and Pederson. 31-39.  af Wählberg. and Kulanthayan.T. Psychological Testing and Assessment. 25. L.. Drinking and driving: intention.  Abdul Kareem. K. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (2007). A.. individual crash level approach. and Law. Musa. 5. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors.  Abdul Rahman. M. P.H. 169-177. Mohd Zulkifli.  Åberg. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Aiken. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. (2003). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Subramaniam. L. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. and Anurag. (2002). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.R. A. (1999). Crash data analysis: collective vs. 1867-1874. Petaling Jaya. Bahrain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology.  Abdullah..B. Third edition. M..  Adolphs. A. 12.  Ahmad Hariza. 237 .E. Mohd Nasir. (2005). attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 35. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Radin Umar.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). 473-486. A. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. 581-587. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.  af Wählberg.. R. (2002). T.A. (2003). (1993).E.S. N. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. (1979). 289-296. Journal of Safety Research. P. S. MY: Pearson. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.H.
M.. Nature and operation of attitudes. Personality.J. A. (2001). 50(2). I.C. 52.105-110. gender and early morning accidents. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. 404-415. 303-313. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. J. Edwards. (Eds. M. The theory of planned behaviour. J. 179-211. Social.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. T.D. 7. (1991).T. (Eds. and Kerrich. Current Psychology: Developmental. (2001). Women’s Studies International Forum.. J. 47. Aggressive Behavior. I. Annual Review of Psychology. 22(3). I. and Kecklund (2001). A. 10. 10(6). Day.  Armstrong.J. and Haigh. and Beckmann.  Ajzen. (2004). Human Factors. C. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior.A.H.E. W. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. Journal of Sleep Research. W. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 340-342. Ajzen.  Armitage. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Biometrics.  Amin. In Kuhl. 291-307. J. London: John Wiley & Sons. 33(3). Bell. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. and Tubré. (2005). Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. S. M. Age. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness.  Ajzen. 623-633. B. S.  Arthur. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. (1987).  Arbous. J. I. E. (1997). A.  Ajzen. (1985). In Stroebe. 27-58.  Åkerstedt.. and Hewston.  Archer.) European Review of Social Psychology. 187-195.G. 23. (1952). and Christian. T. and Fishbein. Tubré. (2003). 238 . Learning.
Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.. Retrieved April 4. (Ed. (Eds. 34. Arthur. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.L. 279-284. 239 .  Barjonet. 89-105. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. 51(6). Manila: Philippines.  Ballesteros. Wilde. and Carbonell Vaya E...) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 34. 21-30). and Kenny. P. and Tortosa. (2001). W. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. strategic and statistical considerations.A.bakrimusa.  Asian Development Bank (2005). R. Groningen. and Alexander. In Barjonet.S. J. P. R. and Carson. G. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.-E. M. October 18). R.A. T.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Human Performance. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Boston: Kluwer. (2002). Accident Analysis and Prevention. P.  Aylott. F. 4(2). M. Barrett. In Rothengatter.  Barjonet. P-E. Amsterdam: Elsevier.V.31-42.  Austin. (2002).M. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. GJ.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 2007 from http://www.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. D.D. R. 1173-1182. S.-E. (1998). When hope becomes hopelessness. 2(4). (1997). and Dischinger.F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Aschenbrenner. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. B.M. (1991). (2005. F. NL: Styx. 231-234.M.  Baron.  Bakri Musa. 14-29). (Eds. (1994). An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.C. (1986). K. and Biehl. In Trimpop. and Tortosa.
218-229).  Beck. 88. 234(11). 234-240. and Bonnett. 588-606. Hartos. A.C. H. Cognitive therapy. (1987b).T. K.T. (1980). The level of and relation between hope. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. M. 19. In (Flinders. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.  Benzein. E.T. Beck. New York: Meridian. and Mills. Weissman. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. (2005).  Belli.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp.. J. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. 149-178). (1975). Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. and Loftus. A. D. Health Education and Behavior.M. P.  Beck. and Weissman. R. Cognitive models of depression.K.  Beck. J. Psychological Bulletin.C. 157-179).. and Trexler. New York: Cambridge University Press. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. L. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. (1993). A.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. E.T.E. (pp. (1974). D.S. 29(1).T. New York: Brunner/Mazel. In Rubin. Palliative Medicine.G. A. A. Theory: the necessary evil. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.  Beck. (1996).  Beck. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem.A. Lester. 1146-1149. 1(1). A. (Ed. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 73-84.. G. A. D.  Bentler.H.G. (Eds.. (1976). (1987a). A. and Steer. Journal of the American Medical Association.T.  Beck.T. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. In Zeig. (1999). and Simons-Morton (2002). Hostility and Violence.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. 240 . New York: Teachers College Press. Kovacs.F. A. and Berg. D.J. (1993). R..F.  Beck. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. A. 5-37. 42  Becker. (Ed.
com. B. A.  Blasco.B.  Boyce. 34(1).D. J.. and Valentine. Benjamin. 45(1). Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. Psychological Bulletin. and Shimmin. Malaysian National News Agency.S.my/bernama/v3/printable. M.C. Journal of Personality Assessment.  Blumenthal. 313-322. E.A. Applied Ergonomics. (2006). 37-40. 37. K. Stress and Coping. R. 43. R.A. T. and Bonino.. (2006. 132(5). R. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.. Graziano. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. Applying Psychology in Organizations. S. 53.  Blacker. Williams. D. (2001).  Boff. Accident analysis and Prevention.  Bridger. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence.S. and Haney. 44-51. March 12).  Bettencourt.J. 15(1). 95-104. Talley. 472-481  Binzer. T. Anxiety. New York: McGraw Hill. H. F. Introduction to Ergonomics. 39-55. 241 . A.bernama. 38(3). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. (1994). and Geller. (2002).. F. Applied Psychology: An International Review. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. 2007 from http://www. (2006).  Bernama. New York: Routledge. (1984). Retrieved March 30. 751-777. S. M.  Bina. Managing the high costs of road deaths. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.php?id=185148.E. Ben-Zur. J. McKee. (1981). 391-399. Psychology and road safety.. (1995).
Multivariate Behavioral Research. 105-124. Ergonomics.M. W. Goldzweig. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences. Levine. International Journal of Educational Development. and Cudeck. E.. observational data and driver records. Haliburton. 37(4). Political Geography. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. and Huguenin. 641-649.  Browne. Journal of Applied Psychology.C. In Rothengatter. (Eds. R. 14. and Wilde. and Carbonell Vaya. 27(3).J.S.W. Briggs. 21. 267-278. 345-352. 242 . 4(4). I. (2002). 20-23. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. R. 24(1).  Brown.  Brown. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (Eds. and Noy. M.G.C. (2007).D. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. 32(1).P. 219-241.K. Schlundt.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Bunnell. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G. In Rothengatter.  Burns. (1997).W. (1995). R. and Ghiselli. D. I. (1992). 9-19). 318-330.  Brown. R.  Brown.  Brown. 445-455. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. T. G. (1989). (2000). and Warren. N.E. C. Accident Analysis and Prevention.D.  Brindle. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Amsterdam: Pergamon. W.E. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. 29-38  Brodsky. T.C. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. T. E. P. 18(2). (2005).S.D.. (1948). Amsterdam: Elsevier. R.. C.. I. I. (1982). (2004). 24. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.
Mercado. Ergonomics.  Byrne. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. 45-50. 31.H. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. Cohn.  Buss. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. 22. Applications and Programming. F.L. (2004). Human Brain Mapping. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage.F. (1999). and Nasar. 15981613. and Cortes. B.. W. E. J.G..K. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. 736-751.L. M. Gonzalez. 243 .. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. (1974). (2003). 47(15).  Carsten. International Journal of Psychology.P...H. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. E. D. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. Parada. (1957). R. Hinojosa. 21. 343-349.D. and Tapia. In Fuller. (Eds. and Borgatta. and Kline. Martin-Loeches. J. M.W. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oxford: Elsevier Science. (1981). (2000). Buss.  Caird. 290-299. J. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. 65-115).) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. (2002). In Bohrnstedt. and McIver. 9.. M. G. T. J. E. (1998). and Durkee.. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. A.  Byrd.A.J. J.  Byrne. Multiple perspectives. A.  Carment.A.W. J. (2004). L. B. Environment and Behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. 35(6). 63-65. & Santos. Journal of Consulting Psychology.  Carretie. L.M.  Cackowski. Applications and Programming. M.  Carmines. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. A. (Eds). and Warren. O. T.
Amsterdam: Elsevier.-L. Kuala Lumpur. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. Personality and Individual Difference.D. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. (2006). (Eds. Retrieved March 31. 2007 from http:www.G. R. S. Cheung. What are we allowed to ask. (2007). W.  Cheung. Driving: through the eyes of teens. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. November). 467-477. Sunway Campus.-H.P. J. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 2008 from http://www. (1996).F. Retrieved October 15. 61-71). Y. J. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. and Denis. T. Howard. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. 109-122. N6. Dictionary of Psychology.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. F.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Chalmé.  Cheah. Carver. S. March 20-22. Brazil. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. The Star. Malaysia.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. and Nash. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. In Rothengatter.H. Matto Grosso do Sul.0. D.M. R.pdf 244 . what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. R. and Lim. Campo Grande. P. Visser.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). 21(4).W. R. (2007.ictct.  Chang. M. (2000). Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop.. (2004)..  Chaplin. New York: Dell. and Huguenin. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. T. Monash University. 41. 557-562.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). (1985).  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. H. and Yeh.-H. November 12).ghipr. 10(2). Taiwan.
 Christie. (2005). (1999). S. P. T. In Rothengatter. M.D. T..  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. 24(2). C. Koumaki. P.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Chioqueta. Kasniyah. 2007 from http://www.makeroadssafe. and Chan.L. Lamsudin. and Bukasa.D. Demakakos. )2007).pdf  Conrad. MacGregor. M. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.  Chipman.P.. 39. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Ward. V.. (2004). injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia.  Clarke. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. 22(3). 125-129. 28(2). M.. 196-203.  Chliaoutaks. W. R.. 193-200. French. E. June). (2007). Driver selection and improvement in Austria. J.  Chmiel. and Lee-Gosselin. (Eds. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.  Chung. Safety at work. P. 38(6). B. (2000). C. and Stiles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Personality and Individual Differences. C..K.. and Costello. A.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. (Ed.E. 13(2). N.. Retrieved December 7.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. hopelessness and suicide ideation. 1283-1289. Smiley. 974-981. (2002). Cairns. Bartle.. N.C. D.. 255-274). N.’ Injury Prevention. 431-443. Y.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Helmets. 377-390). S. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues.... H.S. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. (1996). (1992). and Darviri.T. Personality traits and the development of depression. Bradshaw. R. and Truman. In Chmiel. Time vs. P.M. 679-684. C.G. N. and Huguenin. 33. Journal of Safety Research.. 245 . A. G. E. and Ward. Bakou. Cancer Nursing. Towner. Tzamalouka.  Christ. Panosch. R.
M. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. W. (1996). D.  Crombag. Wagenaar. Amsterdam: Elsevier. October 18). N. 161-175). Legal and Criminological Psychology.  Cresswell.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.J. p. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. Retrieved April 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier.A. and Santos. 98-117. Journal of Personality Assessment.. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 5(1). R.asp?id-7003.R. L.my/permalink. H. 263.  Costa.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers.  de Waard. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. R.thestar. 10.  Crittendon. 45-62. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. In Rothengatter. Cooke. and McRae. and Froggatt. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. F. (1961). Mental workload. and Durso. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.L.T. P. 10.A. and Huguenin.W. (1991). R. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. K. G. Accident proneness. American Psychologist. 246 .S. 21-50. (1962). 95-104. February 8).  Davin Arul (2005. N48  de Raedt. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. D.D. P. The Star. 2007 from http://blog. 152-171.  Cozan. and van Koppen. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.com.  Davies. 20(5). In Fuller. J. and Patel.M. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. (1995).F. (Eds.J. T. (2005). (2002). (2006. W. P. 16(5). R. 64.
A. de Waard. In Rothengatter. Age differences – drivers old and young.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. S.L.. (2002a). R. On the measurement of driver mental workload. and Olson. (2005). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Lynch. R. (1998). Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. (1999). The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.L. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Women’s Studies International Forum.  Dien. 575-590. R. J. E. R. T. 5-17. E. 333-356.  Dewar.R. E. R. 14(12). R. T. 50(2). and Brookhuis. J.W. (Eds. R. 34. E..E. and Salvatore. D.S. J.L.E. Personality and Individual Differences. Lynch. M...S. Oetting. E.  Deffenbacher.R.. P.S. and Carbonell Vaya. Richards. C. T. Tucson. Petrilli. Lynch. and Morris. (Eds. E. and Olson. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Oetting. Tucson.D. and Ameratunga. Journal of Counseling Psychology.D. Huff. 383-402. 247 . and Swaim.L.N.R. Oetting.. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. The expression of anger and its consequences. 123132. E.  Deffenbacher.L. R. L. 373-393.T. 161-171).  Delhomme.  Devashayam. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.. (2003). J.L. Ergonomics. 209-233). Behaviour Research and Therapy. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. J. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. R. R. 28. 729-730. T.B. Individual differences. 26(1). (Eds. (2002b). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. and Meyer. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia.. 111-142). P. N.S. In Dewar. In Dewar. 47.R. S. 27(4).  Deffenbacher. and Oetting. (2000).  Deffenbacher.E. 41.  Dharmaratne.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan.L.F. Cognitive Therapy and Research. P.. (1996). (2003). Filetti.C. (2004).  Dewar. K. 1-20. (1997). Lynch.
) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. 85-92).. Nigeria.Y. C.E. H. (2003)..A. D. A. Health Education Research. T. A. M.G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.E. J.D. In Khalid.  Dobson. Bahar.T. S. Knowledge transfer. R.. Kedah.L.  Dula.. (1987). M. 1146-1158. and Coie. ‘Fatalism’. Sungai Petani. R.L. S. C. Mohd Yusuff. 323-331. Clayton. L.G. 33.  Dodge. R.S. A.  Dukes. and Rodgers. S. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.M. and Carbonell Vaya. C. N. Brown.. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. In Dorn. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. (2001).. In Rothengatter. and Mayser.  Downe. (2003). Science & Technology. (Eds. L. K. Women drivers’ behaviour. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.L. 525-535.. Ebersbach.  Downe. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2007.. Lim. M. December). accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. T. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. 248 . Amsterdam: Pergamon. November).a. J. T. and McFadden. 53.R. Miller. (Eds. Powers. negative emotional and risky driving. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.P. and Che Doi. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). and Ballard. Malaysia.  Dixey. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. 223-231). (2004. (Ed. (1997). and Loke. 197208. W.  Draskóczy. 278-285).. Ball. 263282. Jenkins. (1999). E. (1999). Lippold.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.. Asian Institute of Medicine. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Dietze. 14(2). M. 31.A. J. Social Science Journal 38. M.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp..
Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Ménard-Buteau. 771-782.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. 293-300. 249 . (Ed. New York: Academic.B.  Elvik.  Dunbar. 2007 from www.. 159165. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. In Lefcourt. Annals of Internal Medicine. Dumais. J.M. To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) 15th Workshop.. Brno. 50(13). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. (2002). Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. 69. R. 4(3). and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.  Ellis. 74. West. J. (1968).. 279-294. (1984). Annals of Internal Medicine.. N. Retrieved December 25. R. March 20-22. 17-26). Journal of Transport Geography.ictct. (2005).(Ed. Psychological Bulletin. J. Boyer. New York: Lyle Stuart Press.pdf  Engel. 113. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy.. G. Lesage. 209-306).  Elangovan. G. C.. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (1996). (1993). Czech Republic.L.. Chawky. A. and French D. 201-22. Lalovic. satisfaction and commitment. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. (1971). G.. R.A.L. A. G. C. A. and Turecki.R.D. Causal ordering of stress. H. 22(4). Kim.  Engel. 838-844. Leadership and Organizational Development.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. (2001).  Elander. (1962). A. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. (2005). G. In Underwood. A.  Edwards. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior.
B. Evans. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. E. 250 . 86(6). Klesges. 421-435. C.  Farmer. E. 16. W..G. (1995). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Risk Analysis. December 10). M. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. American Journal of Public Health.  Ey. The Star. E. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates.M. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. p.  Farmer. 23(5).  Ferguson. 784-786. (1976). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. J.A. K.G. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Chambers.S. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. Patterson.  Evans. (1991).M. G. (1996). L. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. Traffic Safety and the Driver. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. E. L. Hadley. and Chambers.A.  Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. London: Medical Research Council.. E.6bil losses yearly.J. Herth. L. 84). and Chambers. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Evans.G.  Farmer. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. S. and Popovich. 6(1). 38). 81-94. (1986). New York: McGraw Hill.M. E. (1929). S.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. and Alpert. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (1984). N22. London: Medical Research Council. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. 55).000 and RM5. L. (1926).  Farran. Barnard.. London: Medical Research Council. 19-36. (1939). L.. (2000)..
and Seiden. R. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. San Francisco. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. K. and Rosenman.. and Richardson. R... Human Factors for Engineers (pp.  Friedman. M. and Santos.  Forward. S. (1998.W. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. (1974). I. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Cross Cultural Management. Accident analysis and Prevention. (2000).  Fuller. Tix. Intention and Behavior. Belief. 51(1). 137-145.P. A.  Finn. 37. (1990). (2005). M. Malays and Indians compared.  Fishbein. R.A. Linderholm. 461-472.W. Attitude. In Fuller. and Barron. (1975). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 115-134. 77-97).E. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. H. 66. (2002). J. Human factors and driving. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. S.  Fontaine. (2007). A. 412-426..  Forward. consequences and considerations.  Firestone. and Bragg. R. 251 . and Ajzen. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. 47-55. S.R. The task-capability interface model of the driving process.  Fuller. New York: Knopf. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 63-77. R. 9. (2006).  Frazier. August). (2004). 207-213. P. and Järmark. P.A. Journal of American College Health. B.A. (2005).  Fuller. Ferguson. S. I. 38(5). 289-298. Teoh. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Recherche Transports Sécurité. causes. 12(4). R. Journal of Safety Research 38. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade.T.H. S.18(4). E. and McCartt. (1986). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. R. Women and traffic accidents.
R. H. D.B. S.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 13-21. C. 19. 93-96).E.S. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Behavior Paterns. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. R. 16(5). (1949). Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. McHugh.  Gidron. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.  Galovski. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. 203-220.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1999).. MY: Sage. (2006).. Gal. D.S.B. Aggressive Driver. Petaling Jaya. 540-546. Y. (2008). C. Journal of Food Products Marketing. (2006). and Gomez.  Gomez. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Y. (Eds. and Hyder.  Ghiselli. 487-491. Ergonomics. T. (1996). 252 . (2003).. and Brown. E. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. T. A. (Eds. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Nandy. European Journal of Public Health.W. 167-202). 12(4). (1997).  Graham.T. K. E.  Grayson. L. rights and redistribution in Malaysia.D. G. Mutu. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 109-128. and Carbonell Vaya.T. Malta. E.  Gidron.E.  Garg. Hillsdale. N. (2006).  Ghazali. 58(1). 1233-1248..) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Blanchard. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.A. (1977). Fuller. E. N. E. and Davidson. A. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.A.  Glass. E. (1999). 109-116. 33(6). A. 6. 42(9). In Rothengatter. R. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Stress and Coronary Disease. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. and Pender. and Mahbob. and Syna Desevilya. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.C.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
(1976).M. 177-196. 659-662. Journal of Social Psychology. E.C.  Lee. Conner. 2nd Edition. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. (Ed. 3. Lawton.  LeShan. In Lefcourt. D.  Lerner. 303-304. and Morgan. H. New York: E. (2001). (2005). In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.  Lefcourt.. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. British journal of Psychology.V. 38. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. (1974). K. H.. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Moscati. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). H.M. 37. Accident Analysis and Prevention. L.  Levenson. (2002).. Barrett. 262 . 479-490. and Stiller. A. H.L..P. Cancer as a turning point. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. 97. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. C.M.  Leech.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Janssen.  Lenior. H. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. R.G. Malay dominance and opposition politics. W. R. (1989). New York: Academic.407-423.  Levenson. H. 93. 41. and Nutter. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. H. N.K. Journal of Personality Assessment. G. Mahwah. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. A. G.J. Jehle.  Lefcourt. (1973). 253-269).M.B. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. IV.A. D. Billittier. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. Dutton. (2002). Additional dimensions of internal-external control.  Levenson. Applied Ergonomics. 377-383.M. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1983). pp. (1975). 397-401.
P.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. K. 536-545. W. (Ed.S.com. 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. Hwang. In Rothe. 39(3).. (2004).htm. powerful others and chance. The Star Online. In Lefcourt. February 2). H-D. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. C. Levenson.. Neighbors. 7.A. (2007). R.  Lin.  Levy.  Lim.S. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. H. L-L. (Ed. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. J. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H-F. E. 213-222.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 59-67. March 26). Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Donovan. (1981).com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. 8-9  Liverant. 2007 from http://www. Differentiating among internality. Psychological Reports.  Lonero. and Scodel. 10. (1980). Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.. (1999.  Lonczak.M.limkitsiang.  Looi. F. New York: Academic. L. Huang. D. 15-63). (1997). 2007 from http://thestar. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General... Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender.P. H. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. (1960). (1979).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. M-R.my/news/story. 263 . I. (2007.  Lindsey. Retrieved May 14. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. Retrieved April 5.  Loo. 11. A. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 125-127. S. Wu.M. H. 36. and Yen.
Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. M. (2003). 299313. Annual mileage. 18(4). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. of affect.M. and Balla. I.R.  Matthews. Victoria NSW. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (1997). A. Journal of Personality. Journal of Rehabilitation. and Wan. Campbell. J. R. 55(2). (1994). C.A. H. Watson. and Hershberger.  Marsh. P. Report No. (2000).R. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses.M. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 264 .  Luckner. L.P.  Macdonald. S.  Martin. K. (1989). 233-252). J. 129.L. Australia. J. Balla. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. behavior and cognition. D.W.L.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. H. 391-411.  Marsh.  Marcoulides. G. (Ed. 62-67. D. Vissers. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.R.  Maakip. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. (1988).W. (1999). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Quality & Quantity.A. (1986). R.L. and Mooran. 185-217.. A. 73-87. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.  Massie.. and Williams. J. 68(5).F.  Maruyama.M. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Lourens.28. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. (1998).L. In Dorn.. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A.. (1994. G. W. and Jessurun. age. C.L. (1995). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 27(1). 31. Psychological Bulletin. M. 593-597.F. 103.. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.K. May). Malaysia. 869-897. R. and level of education. and McDonald.
Ismail. L.V. Ergonomics. Gilbody.. Sambasivan. (1974). 173-181. J. Risk Analysis. 29.E. F. Beresford. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. 9. Fort Worth TX: Holt. 769-778. E. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 2007 from http://www. (1977).net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. (1989). 23.R.  McKenna.  Mendel.W. F. (2005. (1986). (1983).  McKenna. D. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. S. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven.E. Personality in Adulthood. S. (1998). D..P. Psychological Medicine. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. 34(47). and Neilly. 265 .htm  McConnell.  McRae. 71-77. A. New York: Guilford. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. 45-52. G. J.  Meichenbaum. Hampshire UK.. and Burkes.P. (2009). [ in press]. 37(6). Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Unconscious suicides. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Retrieved April 5. P. G.D. and Costa.. November 6). F. New York: Plenum. Waylen. Malaysia Today. M. (1989).  Mercer. I. M.  McKenna. Understanding Human Behavior. (1990).P. 649-663. I. Rinehar and Winston. Perspectives Psychiatriques..malaysia-today. R. Duncan. (2007). Journal of Managerial Psychology. The University of Reading.  Md-Sidin. and Brown. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period.  McMillan.
M. P. (154). and Blum. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. (1985).J. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. 341-353. and Schwing. and Laflamme. 6(2). Kayumov.my/en/street_smart_statistik.A. 33(3). (1949). 38(6). 61(3).) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. and Shapiro. Journal of Applied Psychology. In Helkama. Statistics. C.  Mikkonen.L.L. Time intervals between accidents.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 75-85. what should we do? In Evans. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1989). J. Finland. H. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. M. (2006). L. Simulator performance. A. 266 .M.L. A. (2006). 147-161. 335-342. J. Aggressive driving. 21(4)..E. (Eds.  Miles..) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. 44(2).panducermat. and Niemi. 2006 from http://www. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2003). Turku. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. E.php. Michon. Washington DC. 2007. 401406.pdf  Moller.  Monárrez-Espino. R. l.. Nhan.  Mintz. Bulmas. and Johnson. G. and Keskinen. J.org/pdf/agdr3study.  Michon. Safety Science. Retrieved May 23.A. (1983.org. New York: Plenum. microsleep episodes. L.aaafoundation. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. Retrieved December 15. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. Hasselberg. V. In Aggressive driving: three studies.C.. May). from http://www. J.  Mizel. D. K.  Mintz. (1997). L. 195-211. (Eds. E.
E. and Krasner. L.  Most. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. MY: Sage. and Comrey. Accident proneness and road accidents. Rajasingham-Senanayake. A. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. Journal of Affective Disorders. J. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. P. R. 8. A. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making.  Novaco. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.S. R. 15(2). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents.. (2007). (1956). and Astur.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. (1987).  Näätänen. 51-63. 72.  Morris.  Niméus. 6. Nandy. Boston: Pearson. T. 243-261. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. I. In O’Donoghue . W. (2007). D. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. 38(1). 320-388). New York: Allyn & Bacon. 164-174. 42.L..  Näätänen. W. Journal of Applied Psychology. Religioin 37. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.  Moore. (Eds. and Gomez. 167-202). Montag. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors.L. Fifth Edition. (1994). Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). K. H.  Nandy. R. Transcultural Psychiatry. (Eds. 267 . 125-132. and Summala H. R. (2003).  Mousser. (1976). S. Visual Cognition. and Summala. Amsterdam: North Holland. A. 137-144. 32-37. (1974). E. 339-343.L.T. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. and Maniam. A.B.  Neuman. Petaling Jaya. (1999).
[Letter to the Editor] The Star. February 8). (2002). (1996..  O’Neill. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. J. B.F (2001). Straits Times. R. p.W. and Olson. 4. Pentilla. A. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. 171. R. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 43-76). 445-460. Driver suicides. (1997). Injury Prevention. P. 40(10). Tropical Medicine and International Health.  Ogden. Driver perception-response time. 468-472. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Temes. (Eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero.. Human factors in modern traffic systems.  Olson. Tucson. F. Aggression on roadways. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal.  O’Connell. 654-656.  Ohberg.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.B.  Novaco.  Ochando. J. In Baenninger.L. K. UK: Ashgate.A. and Santos. 92-93. p. and Z. Oxford UK: North Holland. December 9). Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. M. (1998). 4(2). and Lonnqvist. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Zwi (1997). Ergonomics. I. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 34.L (2002). (Ed. N51. R. P. R. (1997). says operator. and Williams. M. A.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads.  Noy. In Fuller.38. 201-215).W. W. (2000). 268 . [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application].W. 237-252. 1016-1024. (1996). J. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.R. A..) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Garner. E. 2(5).S. Aldershot. (2001). In Dewar. P. R. (2007. Novaco. 253-326). British Journal of Psychiatry. and Hermida.
38(3).  Özkan. Anger on and off the road.  Parker. and Lajunen (2005). (2002). 113-140. S. British Journal of Psychology. L. Tassinary.  Papacostas. (pp. 479-486. N.  Parsons.S. Özkan. Journal of Environmental Psychology.S.. O. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). H. 456-461.A. Retrieved December 20. and Huguenin. W. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. 18. J. 40. Traffic locus of control. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. R. driving violations and accident involvement.  Parker. (Eds. 42. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 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. Finland.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. 3-13. Manstead. 533-545.R and Stradling.D.. Driving errors. 2007 from www. T.. M.M.G. D. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. 229-235.. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. and Kaistinen.ictct.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R. T. and Grossman-Alexander. Helsinki.. (2005). J. Reason. Accident Analysis & Prevention. C. and Synodinos. (1988). A. T.. and Schneider. 269 . D. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. 38(5). and Summala.R. 507-526. (2001).. C. (1995). Personality and Individual Difference. 34. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.W.S. 1036-1048. 92. (2004). Ergonomics. Lajunen.  Parker. M. Lajunen. B. and Saleh. Amsterdam: Elsevier.pdf -  Pai. 37(1).  Parkinson. (2008).E.G. (1998). J.  Parsons. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. T. Hebl.T. D. T. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Ulrich. 125-134). R. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1974).
Perceptual and Motor Skills.B. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Locus of Control in Personality. D. (1976). (1986). 2007 from http:www. 63. L.. Taillard.A.R.) (2004). W.ictct. Switzerland: World Health Organization.  Peltzer. D. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Morristown NJ: General Learning.R. S. Jarawan. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. 201-204.J. M. 3.J. Geneva. (2002).  Philip. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. 875-878. A. (1980). March 20-22. Retrieved March 31. Campo Grande. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Peden. 1153. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.  Per.s  Pelz. E.M. Bioulac. R.  Phares. Hyder. B. and Baldwin. B. G. Simple reaction time.C. Peden. Sleet. and Peters. (2003). A. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. and Åkerstedt. G. K.. Quera-Salva. (2005). 9-14 270 . risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. (1999). Automotive Vehicle Safety. Matto Grosso do Sul. London: Taylor & Francis. 147-154. E. D. 8(1). U. Perceptual and Motor Skills.  Pestonjee.. and Singh.and Schuman. J. and Hyder. (2000). (1971). P.. Mohan. Superstition. Brazil.A. 619-623. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. British Medical Journal. Scurfield.A. M. Journal of Sleep Research. 91. and Al Haji. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.. (2002). A.  Peters.. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 35.  Perry. D.H. 12(3). T. A. 68-79. 324. M. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. and Mathers (Eds.. and Renner.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry.
J. Cambridge University Press. 32(2). (1989).J. T. internal-external locus of control and depression.H.  Reason. Rider training. S. 26. (1991). Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 29(1). 271 . 317-333.-G. K.  Preston.  Ranney. (2007). J. F. 369-374  Renner. J. 566-573. (2000). 3112).  Reeder. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. C..J. J. 33.  Radin Umar.J. Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology. R.I. 16(3).D. (1990). J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Hopelessness. C. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.S.  Prociuk.  Reason. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. S. 78-80. A. P. R. W. (1996)..E. S. and Pant. and Langley. and Corlett. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Manstead. Baxter.  Proctor. S.. Chalmers. 299-300. and Anderle. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes.N. (1994). E. 733-750. and Harris. Human Error. S. 334-343. (1990). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 32. Traffic Engineering and Control. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. and Lussier. New York: McGraw Hill. 673-678.  Porter. 32(3). 284-288.. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. and Campbell. Disaster Prevention and Management. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Ergonomics. Breen. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Stradling. 1315-1332. (1965). (1993). 49(4).S. L. D..  Rautela. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. T.A. 20(4). S. (1976). (2005). Plous.
be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. (2003.64. (2000). Weinstein. (2007) Statistik2006. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology.  Romano. Singapore: Elsevier. R. T. (Ed).B. H. S.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.R.D. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. 569-582. Ergonomics. Retrieved May 23.  Robbins. R. 34(15). (1999).A.G.P. (2004). and Voas. 453-460.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.. and Nickel. E. W-R.efpa. (2003).S.  Rice. A. (2005).L. P.pdf  Risser. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Stress and Health. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Tippetts.  Romano. Journal of Safety Research. and Solomon.html  Robbins. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. 2007 from http://202. 485-489.  Richardson. 2007 from http://www.  Rimmö.G. April). Retrieved December 11. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. K. R. 1-7.Y. P-A. P. (2002). Theories of science in traffic psychology.  Risser. R. and Huguenin. and Downe. R. S. and Voas. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Organizational Behavior. S. In Rothengatter. R. (2000). Report to the General Assembly. E. In Lim. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Retting.190... Journal of Safety Research. S. 37(3). 272 . (Eds. cities. Tippetts. 45(8). Anger. 37(1).
Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. (1966). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. (1990).  Rothengatter. 308-331. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. In Barjonet. (pp.  Rothengatter. In Rothe. topics and methods. (2001) Objectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 5.B. Capital & Class.  Rotter.P.  Rothengatter. 595-600). 43(3). whole issue. 43(1). American Psychologist. J. J. (1975).P. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.B. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. Traffic safety: content over packaging.  Rowley. J. 273 . 88. 214-220). C. G. C. 489-493. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. J.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. (2005).) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 249-258. Boston: Kluwer.B. M. J. M.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2002). (2006).  Rotter. (Ed. (Ed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. G. In Underwood. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. 80. 3-12). (2007). Rosenbloom.B. (2002). 56-67. 84-115. Psychological Monographs.  Rotter. T. (Ed. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Rothengatter. 428-435  Rothe.(Ed. and Bhopal. A. T. (2005). and Shahar. T. and Bhopal.  Rowley. T. P-E. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. (1998). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. T. 10. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. 45.
A. 29(1). 37(2). September 26).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). (1997). J.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002).  Salminen. Kuala Lumpur. Thrills. Retrieved May 22.gov. 2007 from http://www. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. IBU Pejabat Polis.A2.malaysia-today.  Salminen. Bukit Aman. B. 2003 from http://www. IBU Pejabat Polis. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Sadiq. 23-42). occupational. 33-36. Kuala Lumpur.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). p. Road Safety – Back to the Future. sports and home accidents. Correlations between traffic. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. In Fuller.  Saad. S.rmp. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Rude drivers lack emotional control. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. September 29). Bukit Aman. F. (2005. (2006. Accident Analysis and Prevention.htm 274 . Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). S.). J. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. IBU Pejabat Polis. (2002). (2005). and Heiskanen. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). and Santos (Eds. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. Retrieved December 11. 373-376.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman.my.  Sabey. Bukit Aman. The Star. Kuala Lumpur. (1999). R.
Personal correspondence. M.F. K.  Sambasivan.  Schwebel. P. 314-318. 484-491. Fosser. C.L.F. Severson.K. and the social psychological road in between.C.A. L. 801-810. and Langley (2002). Traffic Engineering + Control. M.C. 29(3). (2006). v. Jr.  Sendut. 34. A. (Eds. A. (1981). J. P. Morf. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp.  Schneider... and Bourne. 117-147). In Healy. and Rizzo. H.C. (2008.. F.A. and Sætermo.A. (2003). 38.T. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. M.  Schlag. C.E. (2004). V. Regional Development Series. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. A. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. A.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. Healy. D.F. 6. In Honjo. (1995). B.. Ericsson. Nagoya: Japan.  Sansone. 673-687. I. Applied Economics. and Schade. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. Ball. (Ed. C. conscientiousness.E. J. (1997). In Sansone.. 3-16). The research process: of big pictures. 6(9). 275 . and Young. C. and Panter. K. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. (2000). 293302  Salih. 179-188. little details. L.  Scuffham. 41. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Accident Analysis and Prevention. K. S. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Sagberg.. 35. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.. Asian Survey. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. and Bourne.  Scuffham. Jr. (1966). November 15). and sensation seeking. Accident Analysis and Prevention.). M. and Panter.I. Morf.T. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity.
J. and Payne. (2001). (2003). M. Boston: Kluwer. and Warshaw. P. (2000). Hartwick. Ergonomics. R. E. B. Automobile accidents. and Roskova. Fourth Edition.. 137-160. K.  Sharkin. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.M and Kacmar.M. S. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.E. New York: McGraw Hill.H. C. H. 1. (2004). 51(1). (1988). (1998). (2003). (1956). Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation.. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 237-240.S. and Zakowska. Sekaran. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. In Barjonet. (Ed.P.  Shook. and Kanekar. A.  Sheppard. (1988). Journal of Consumer Research. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. D. D. 361-365.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp..E. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). 46(15). 25. U. S. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. 119(3).  Selzer.  Shapiro. Strategic Management Journal. 180-205). Journal of Counseling and Development. B. C.L. American Journal of Psychiatry.  Sharma.L. Summala. 276 . 325-343.R. suicide and unconscious motivation. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. L. M. (1962). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dewar. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.. D.J..  Shinar.T. (2007). J. 3-7. 1549-1565. G. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study.  Shinar. 397-404. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. 15(3). Hult.  Siegel. 66.  Siegriest. Ketchen. P-E.
44. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale.  Smiley. Kurylo.. P. C.A.K. 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. Journal of Risk and Insurance. 47(8). 2007 from http://findarticles. (Ed.. 50(8). Jr.org/publik/driving.. (1995). Auto safety and human adaptation.A. Cognitive Therapy and Research.D. Reheiser. E. (1992). Stress. (2007).). Winter). Product design with people in mind. M...  Stanton. Ergonomics. 277 .D. (Ed.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. and Sydeman. Matthews. expression and control of anger.. P. N. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.J. Sinha. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. 21(4). N. London: Arnold.sirc. S. (2004). Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. (2007).) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. B.  Slinn.. S. FL: Taylor & Francis. Lichtenstein. and Watson. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. 2007 from http://www. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.pdf  Spielberger.  Stanton. 1-18). M. N. (1997). and Frank. 477-492.C. Retrieved December 1.J. B. B. American Psychologist. Boca Raton. A. and Guest. B. J. 386-397. Retrieved December 25. In Kassinove. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.K. (1998). In Stanton. International Journal of Stress Management. 237-258. Oxford UK. and Poirier. J. Measuring the experience. 1151-1158. C.A. R.  Slovic. B. 14(4)..C.R.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. 1029-1030. (2001. and Coombs. August). Crowson. Editorial.G. Issues in Science and Technology. Corrigan. H. (1977). Fishchoff. Houston.  Spielberger. D. 49-68). P. C.
 Stough. In Stough. M. Cheltenham. (2005). (1993). D.. T. J. 178-182. 1359-1370. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates.R. R. M.) Handbook of Emotions (pp.C. M. The Methodology of Theory Building. UK: Edward Elgar. N.A. 279-300).E.M. New York: Guilford. G.. (2001). (Ed. N.  Stein. and Jin. P. R.  Sümer. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects.  Steiner.  Sümer. 467-480. and Pinto.W. 681-688.A. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. 2(4). Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. 63. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1978). M.  Stevenson. Sümer. Traffic congestion. Bilgic. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes.  Storey. R. In Lewis. N.  Stewart.. and stress..R. (1996). E. and Erol. Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Subramaniam. N.. 278 . 139(6). Stanton. T. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. (2005). Novaco. R. 949-964. Trabasso.L.E. Type A Behavior. (Eds. (2003). and Campbell. (1988). J. Journal of Psychology. D. Traffic Injury Prevention. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs.  Stokols. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 529-544. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Maggio. N. Stokols.. and Ryan. and Havland. N. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. R. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. J. Morrison. Palamara. (2000). M. Medical Journal of Malaysia. H..) Intelligent Transportation Systems. (2001). A. 247-254. D. 44(3). 43(9). 37(4). 35. and Liwag.
Journal of Traumatic Stress. and de Bruin. 442-451. (Eds. and Carbonell Vaya E. 18(4).  Summala. A. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. A..K.. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. H. 383-394). M. (2006). (1988). (1980). 22(1-3). Human Factors.N. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. G.  Sümer. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 38. Mahasakpan. 103-117. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks.. P. (1997). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. (Report 11). S. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 .  Summala. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Ergonomics.  Summala. (Eds. (2005). H. 41-52). In Underwood.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personal resources. R. T.  Swaddiwudhipong. (1996). T. Accident risk and driver behaviour. 491-506. and Näätänen. (1996). H. 703-711. Berument. H. G. 21. Sümer. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. N. and Tantriratna.  Summala. Safety Science. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. (1988).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.. Nguntra. and Gunes. 38(3). N. W. H. Nieminen. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. and Punto.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. 82-92)..  Summala. (1994). (1986). (Ed.  Summala. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. 193-199.  Summala. Özkan. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. Helsinki. R. T. In In Rothengatter. H. (2005). T.. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. T. H. 331-342. Karanci. S. and Merisalo. In Rothengatter.. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. vehicles. Koonchote. and Lajunen. 31.
A. (Ed. Ono. Ono. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.R. Journal of Social Psychology.233-239. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.  Theodorson.E.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.G. S. and Papacostas.  Theeuwes. (2001). E. Boston: Kluwer..J. (1989). and Kitamura. and Huba. L.  Synodinos. 25(1).S.. E. (1969).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.. and Yarnold. Fujihara. G. Kuhn. S. Accident Analysis and Prevention. G.. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion.  Taylor. and Theodorson. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. 609-615. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.A. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. and Layde. 280 . and Fragopanagos (2005). 167-172.  Tavris.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. The effects of road design on driving. T. 241-257. (1985). New York: Simon & Schuster. In Barjonet. (1996). (2001). G.M.  Tavris.  Tanaka. J.C. D. 42. C. 34. J. (1985). P-E. P.. Sakamoto. Sakamoto. P. 241-263). B. (2000). International Review of Applied Psychology. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. T.  Tanaka.S. 353-369. C. In Grimm. 18(4). and Kitamura. (eds. Y. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. (1998).  Tanaka.. 37-44. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. The interaction of attention and emotion. 138(5). 33(2). Fujihara. S. N..  Thompson. Y. S. 581-590. J. 52(6). Neural Networks. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students.M.R. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. E.
G. 123-130. and Milton. (1985). 55-68. 2. Personality and Individual Differences. O.. (Eds. (1973).  Tversky. and Kahneman. 7.  Underwood. 10(3). (1974). 11-22. 1124-1130. Science. (2004). P. (2003). Personality predictors of driving accidents.  Ulleberg. (1997). J. Wright and Crundall. Personality subtypes of young drivers. Thurman. G. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.  Tversky. G. and Kirkcaldy.  Tiliman. Enns.W.F.  Underwood. Chapman. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. 23(1). 279-297. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. (1996). J. A. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.E. D. and Kahneman. Anger while driving. The accident prone automobile driver. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. 106(5).) Handbook of Perception and Action. 185. H. 207-332. C.  Trimpop. 32(3). 321-333. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Applied Cognitive Psychology. R. 5. (2001). Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. A. W. J. and McClure. (1949). American Journal of Psychiatry. J. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. L. C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.T. 4(4). R.  Underwood. London: Academic.. A. Cognitive Psychology. In Neumann. and response to a traffic safety campaign.. accident involvement. D..A and Hobbs. Volume 3: Attention. (1999). Judgment under uncertainty. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. and Vavrik. Mills. 147-152. 281 .  Trick. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. P. 385-424. (1993). and Everatt. D. 5(5). and Sanders. B. G.M.  Turner. 445-448.
S. 913-921. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates. H.  Verwey. A.pdf  Vallières.. (1999). (2000). On-line driver workload estimation. 336-345. 2007 from www. and Vallerand. (2004).B. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Brazil.F. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. Ergonomics.D. E.D. 9(2). Retrieved September 1. In Rothengatter...A. 210-222. Smart. 42. 181-190).  Vaa. (Ed. W. Retrieved December 5.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. Utzelmann.. Meijman. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. and Rothengatter. A. 24-29.A. G. W. J. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). March 20-22. “Accident prone. Ergonomics.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (1999).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (2001).. A. and McIntyre.” Recovery. (2005). Harrison. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personality and Individual Differences. R.  Velting. Cockfield.M. (1998). Italy.  Vasconcellos. T. J. S. D. (Eds. and Huguenin. É. In Underwood. T. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 39. J. Campo Grande. 26.ictct. Sanson.J. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. (2005). 43(2).ictct. R. Harris. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Bergerson. Caserta. T.F. Matto Grosso do Sul.. 2007 from http:www.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours.  Vavrik. 282 .. (2007). M. 444-458. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures.
Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. 421-444. Backwoods Home Magazine. P. (1997). T. New Zealand. and Carbonell Vaya E.A. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. F. 28. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. B. (1998).E. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. R. and Young. In Rothengatter. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). (2009. Raghunathan.  Wállen Warner.. Wellington.  Waylen. 427-433.J. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. (2001). M. 9.P.A.F. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. Journal of Counseling Psychology.. D.  Waller. P. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. T..theaa.com/articles/waterman37. 50(4). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. Elliot. 117128. (2002).  Walker. January 21). J. L.. Stanton.F. 438-447. H. 2007 from http://www. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. Retrieved November 2.B. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 5(4). A. 1-8).  Watson. 283 .P. 33. (2001). and Mallinckrodt (2003). Retrieved December 15. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. A.R. W.H.T. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. and McKenna. Verwey. Personality and Individual Differences. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. and Little. M. and Zaidel. and Åberg. 123-142.. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. P. N. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research.  Waterman.backwoodshome. (2006).html.  Waller. (2000). Shope.S.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. M. 2008 from http://www.pdf  Wei. (Eds. Transportation and society. G. Heppner.
 Wheatley. G.J. M.S. (1993). Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. Dunaway.M..J.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. American Journal of Psychiatry. (ed. (2002).S. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention... 15(11/12). Target Risk. J. 8.M (1956). J.. G. Toronto: PDE Publications. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. Elander. Mild social deviance. 271278. 195. Weissman. P. G. Accident Prevention. 34. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. (1984). Preventions of accidents in childhood.S. (1994). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. (pp. G. In Yager. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.  Wilde. 209-225. (1961).S. (2005). (1988). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. G. S. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.. D. 130(4).J. 207-219. University of Waterloo Press.W. Risk Analysis. (Ed. G. British Journal of Psychology.  Wells. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . G. Ceminsky. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Fox. R.J. M. and French. G.). G. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. 135-154).  Wells-Parker. Hallberg.  Wheatley. Wiliams. Guiling. 31. 450-455. 441-468. (1982). Ergonomics. E.J. S.  Wilde. 1149-1152. 84. 324.  Wilde. Snow..L. and Klerman.  Wilde.S.  Wilde.  Wilde. 2. In Halsey.N. 1116-1121.  West.S.J. (1973). R.. M. and Anderson. Advances in Paediatrics. G. (2007). Childhood accidents. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. K.
Boston: Pearson. 557-567. 55(175). Matto Grosso do Sul. (2003). V. (Ed. M. T. Mastering the World of Psychology. 2007 from http:www. D..Y. 8. 26(6).  Woodcock. (2004). T.C.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Retrieved March 31. March 20-22. (2008). N. (2003).I.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford.  Williams. (1994).R. J. and Poythress.  Williams. Space and Culture. 398-403. 303346.A. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. and Well.K. Flyte and Garner. 807-811. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Gavin. J. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. E.  Wood. (2003). Countries and Their Cultures. M.  Williamson. Psychological Assessment. by age and gender. 31. S. (2000).  Williams.  Williams. International Social Science Journal. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Wood. 6(2). and Boyd. A. and Shabanova.J.Workshop.  Wilson.B. (1999). S..E.F. M. L. Applied Ergonomics. 527-531. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. Welsh. Campo Grande. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. (2001).G. J. A. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. (1996). Lenard.. New York: Taylor & Francis. 1. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. 110-131. Boyd.S. Journal of Safety Research.. Cascardi. In Hanson. A.G. 34(5). Responsibility of drivers. T.ictct. Brazil.F. J. 285 . N. 99-109. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. A.) Contemporary Ergonomics.  Williamson.. and Hartman.
Report of an Advisory Group.C. N. theatre and tourism. (2000). S. Geneva. D. Technical Report Series No. Regional Office for the Western Pacific.  Yaapar. .A. 1314-1330. 33(3). (2007). 286 . Head tilt during driving.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). 740-746. Country reports.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G. 473-485. 50(1). 487-503). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. (2005). 46-58. 118. D.R. and Harris. (2005). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. L.  Yergil. Islam. Ergonomics. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. Asian Journal of Social Science. and Stanton. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). X. and Chaffin. Ergonomics. Ergonomics.  Zikovitz. (1999). 42(5). Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. In Underwood. 43(9). (Ed.  Zhang. D. M.S.
drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. As a result. on most surface types. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. the brake line pressure is relates. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. or benefits. Immediately after releasing the pressure. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. ABS ensures that. differential accident involvement). a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. presumably because of personality factors. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . (see also. allowing the wheel to turn.
The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. including driver behaviour. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness.Noy. 288 . black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. risk homeostasis theory. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. task capability theory) . The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. (see also. p. McKenna of the University of Reading. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. The central idea is that. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. characteristics of road users. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. (see also. 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. it refers to a combination of circumstances. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. 25). It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. (see also. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. proximal variable. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. (see also. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. rather than a theory. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. Also referred to as risk compensation. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. time of week and. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. In the present research. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. 2004. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. road and traffic conditions. where possible. distal variable.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P).S. not as a unidimensional. values. 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. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. 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. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness.. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. William Haddon Jr. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. (see also. aptitudes. 289 . selfefficacy and self-esteem. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. (see also. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. self-concept. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. motivation. interests. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. 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). In traffic psychology. ability. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. in-crash.
bicycling. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . motorised bicycles. the individual differences approach. 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”. 1985. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. most usually on roads. and buses. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. the ego and the superego. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. trucks (lorries). p. motor vehicles included automobiles. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. including life goals” (Chaplin. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. Private speech: see self-talk. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. conversely. Included in this term are walking. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy.S. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. For the purposes of the present research. mobile construction equipment or platforms. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. Wilde. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. That is. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. For the purposes of the present research. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. 333-334). individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. 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. motorcycles.
” (Ogden. Within the context of this research. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. (see also. p. at both conscious and unconscious levels. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. stopping places. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. 35). archways and footpaths. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. bridges. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. parking spaces. draining system. 1996. overpasses. including the network. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. behavioural adaptation.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Road safety engineering: “a process. signage. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. target risk. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. 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. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. but only 291 . 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. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. tunnels. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads.
hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). 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. behaviour control) (see also. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. According to Wilde (1994). (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. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. (see also. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. (see also. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. On dry roads. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. theory of reasoned action. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. remains constant at the target level. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. According to RHT proponents. which are the best predictors of behaviour. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). theory of planned behavriour) 292 . and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension.
it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. convenience and economy. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. (see also. In the present research. ergonomics. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. coordinating. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. behavioural adaptation. comfort.Traffic management: planning. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. from its outset. that share the same road infrastructure. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. road engineering. community planning. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. motorised and non-motorised. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. management science and economics. time.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Papacostas & Synodinos. 2000).html 295 . 1993). Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.S.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.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.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.hawaii. Beck & Steer.eng. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. CA 90025 USA http://portal. San Antonio. Brace & Company).edu/~csp/csp. 19500 Bulverde Road. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.wpspublish. Buss & Warren.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. C. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.
edu/hope.psych. C. 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.R. Houston. Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA www.ukans. Crowson. 296 . Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Snyder.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e.g. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. please answer the following questions: 2.what manufacturer & model (e.g. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. _________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. _________. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. We are not asking for your name. Most of the time when you travel. 1. 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 .
8. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. 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. Within the last twelve (12) months. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. 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. When you want to use a car. some of the time ___ 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 . in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.
What is your gender? 16. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.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. Within the last twelve months. 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. Within the last twelve months. 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 age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. 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 .