CAUSE AND PREVENTION OF ROADWAY CRASHES AMONG YOUNG, HIGH-RISK DRIVERS IN MALAYSIA: A MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. 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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event.
Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). However. freeway urgency. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics.
. BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash
outcomes was also investigated. hopelessness. seven fatalities are recorded each day. and destination-activity orientation. and that driver behaviours. respectively). Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. demographic (age. on average. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors.
The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. 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. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. personality traits. 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).ABSTRACT
Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. externally-focused frustration. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. where. some personality constructs. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. 302 and 252. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control.
Among distal variables. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. as well. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed.
. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship.
Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. 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. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. 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. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. As hypothesised. Results indicated that. As reported in previous studies. BIT. 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.
The role of the proximal variable.
5 126.96.36.199 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3
.4 188.8.131.52.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 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 184.108.40.206 Concepts.220.127.116.11.1 18.104.22.168.2.1 An Applied Perspective 2. Theories and Models 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT)
22.214.171.124 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.4 Risk Theories 2.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2
2.1 Accident Proneness 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2 1.3 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.
5. Gender and Ethnicity 126.96.36.199.3.5.1 Demographic Variables 2.2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.1 Age 188.8.131.52.5.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.5
2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 184.108.40.206.5.5.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 220.127.116.11.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.18.104.22.168.2 Hopelessness 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.4
22.214.171.124.3 Psychological Variables 2.1.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.9.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable
34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75
CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.5.1 Locus of Control 126.96.36.199.1 Experience 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 3.1 Statistical Models 188.8.131.52.1.2.5 Aggression
78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85
2.3 Ethnicity 184.108.40.206.2 Driver Characteristics 2.3 Locus of Control 3.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2 Gender 220.127.116.11.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 18.104.22.168 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 Process Models 22.214.171.124.3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.4 Hopelessness 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.
3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 184.108.40.206 Crash Occurrence 3.7
220.127.116.11 Chi-Square (χ2).7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 18.104.22.168 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 22.214.171.124.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 126.96.36.199.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.2 Research Instruments 188.8.131.52.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.1 The Sample 184.108.40.206 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 220.127.116.11 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 18.104.22.168 Independent-sample t-tests 3.6
3.7.4 22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 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
.188.8.131.52.2.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.1 Study 1A 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.4 Study 2 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 184.108.40.206 Multiple Regression Analysis 220.127.116.11.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.3.3
3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2 Study 1B 3.3 Study 1C 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.5
18.104.22.168 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 22.214.171.124 Linear Regression Analysis 3.
13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.4 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 188.8.131.52 Results of Study 2 184.108.40.206.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.6.1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 220.127.116.11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the
112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 18.104.22.168 Description of the Sample 4.1 Age.6.5
4.1.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.6
.6.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 22.214.171.124 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 126.96.36.199.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 188.8.131.52 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.2
184.108.40.206 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.1 Results of Study 1 220.127.116.11.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.3.
.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.18.104.22.168 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.4 22.214.171.124 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 126.96.36.199 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 188.8.131.52 Generalisability of Findings 5.4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.2 Study 2 4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.8
184.108.40.206 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.9.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 220.127.116.11 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 18.104.22.168.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 22.214.171.124
Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3 Timeframe for Data Collection
179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211
5.1 Study 1C 126.96.36.199 Goodness of Fit 5.2 5.7.3.
212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF)
.188.8.131.52.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.3 Education 5.1 Theory vs.7.6.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Driver Selection.184.108.40.206.7. Models in Traffic Psychology 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.7
5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.5.
5 4.1 3.1 4.1 2.4 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.4
115 117 118 119
4.5 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114
111 121 121 122
Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.10 4.3 3.9 4.2 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.7 4.6 4.
.3 3.LIST OF TABLES
No. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 3.
. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.23
4.14 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.24
4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.21
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.22
4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
4.12 4.28 4.19
138 139 144 145
Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.13 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Crash Occurrence Frequency.
5.34 4.30 4.1
199 206 207
5.37 4.33 4.4.6
5.39 4.31 4.35 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
Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors
Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171
2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. Hatakka.2 3. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.3 2.1 4.3 4.1 3.6 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 3.2
64 80 81 82 83 146
3. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.4 2.LIST OF FIGURES
Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models
Page 36 37 40 42
44 46 47
2. 1996.7 2.4
. 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
2.1 2. 2.5
Figure Task Cube (from Summala. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.2 2.
9 4.10 4.6 4.8 4.13
.5 4.7 4.4.12 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
programme. things were not going well. She had needed to go on an errand. I like to watch boxing. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. at least not with real tears. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. they are prone to other types of error as well.
The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. they were focused on the errand. LISREL couldn’t. only a trimester or two earlier. The behaviour of the traveller.
. He was driving. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. but she’d nagged him. . I feel like it each time I think of that moment. And they crashed. I’m pretty happy with it. they cut across a lane too quickly. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. He was very popular with other students. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. She started crying and couldn’t stop. they were frustrated and angry with each other. I wanted to throw in the towel.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. he’d taken the same course as she. and this thesis is the result.PREFACE Accidents occur. I hope it makes a contribution. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. They were hurrying. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated.
Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class.D. Her hands and voice quivered. She had been badly injured. just every so often. But. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I told her not to worry. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. My research design needed a serious re-working. externally-focused frustration. she was riding pillion. to the weary traveler. finally. is a matter of debate … Obviously. lane deviation and all the rest. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. and his mental state. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. He didn’t want to go. I knew the fellow. I don’t cry much any more. I got back to work on them. I was confused by the results I was getting. I feel like it a bit right now. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. How important these factors are. or wouldn’t. But sometimes. I’m a fairly big guy. I didn’t recognise her at first. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence.
g. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p.. road. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. perceptual (Hong.g. Sleet. 11). Verwey. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. 1996. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Enns. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved.
Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. such as Malaysia. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 2002. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. 2007. Ogden. cognitive (Vaa. 2001). for instance. 2000. This is particularly salient in developing countries. judgement. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Mohan & Hyder. 2000). Stanton & Pinto.CHAPTER 1
1. Furuichi & Kadoma. Consistently over the years.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide
(Peden. 1999). 2000). Green. Sabey (1999). 2004). Trick. commented that. Mills & Vavrik. Theeuwes. policy-makers.1
Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Olson. 2004). 2007.
Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 2006. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. 2002). Iwasaki. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. state of mind and physical well-being. including the
. Graham. 2004) have been studied extensively. Scurfield. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Even after decades of study. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. anticipation.. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Peters & Peters. 2001.
including the study of a large number of variables. McKenna. However. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms.351. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.112). 2004.2
Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 1983).732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. 1989).roadway. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. locus of control. According to Dewar (2002b). there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 21). 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 2007). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. The chapter
1.790.332 drivers and
15. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 2005).
. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2002.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. 2003). “the literature on personality has a long history. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. p. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. A total of 10. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. There was a total of 341.
This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.
Vasconcellos. 3). Lajunen & Summala. Gidron. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. 1997. 1997). Blasco. 2002. Loo. 1997). 1994. aggression
(Parkinson. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2001. Hwang. 2002. Cohn. Özkan. 2002. 2006. Stewart. 1993. Barjonet & Tortosa. 2005. Hence. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Ulleberg. Wells-Parker et al. 2003. 2000). 1997). Renner & Anderle. Barrett & Alexander. Severson. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Parada & Cortes. Hartos & Simons-Martin. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 2001. 1991. 1999. 2001). Ball & Rizzon. 1979. 2004. 2003). 2000. 2006. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. 1997). Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Shinar. 2004. 2005). Gal & Syna Desevilya. West & French.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. Rimmö.
Historically. Wells. Sumala & Zakowska. Huang. Lin. 2002) and many others. Dewar. Verwey. 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. Lajunen & Kaistinen. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. 2005. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Schwebel. Gonzalez. locus of control (Arthur. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Elander. 2004). 2002b.
. 2007). that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Wu & Yen. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. Draskóczy.
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. Noy (1997).e. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement.e.Increasingly.
A frequent criticism. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. however. Parker. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. 2005).. Sümer (2003). with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. Hampson & Morris. loss of attention and the
deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.
1. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. for instance. 1997. 1996. 1997). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. in particular.3
The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury
resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. in turn. externally-focused frustration.. 2004). with the risk of roadway casualty?
. personality and demographic) and proximal (i.
Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. vehicle. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. What demographic and personality
factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. Speeding.
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. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially.
1.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. gender and ethnicity. 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. (c) driver locus of control. this research is
important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. 2005. but also on their interactions. By focusing on not only demographic. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. 9). injuries and deaths. situated as proximal variables. (e) driver aggression. “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.
. This is both a key goal and a persistent
challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology.4
The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective.
understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. p. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. (d) driver hopelessness. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. (b) driving experience.
the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. Näätänen & Summala. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy.
. 2005. 1997. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. There is a growing sentiment that. in the applied
sciences. the breadth of their scope and the complexity of key constructs raise concerns as to whether they actually stimulate or retard practical work in a specialised field (Huguenin. the plethora of theories available. 2004).
Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. Rothengatter. Some authors have suggested that.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. p. Laapotti. road safety measures and public policy. The present
research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. “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. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2004. 2000). 1997). Katila & Peräaho. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 1993). Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 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. 1974).
Moreover. 2004. 2001. Utzelmann. 94). Hatakka.
2001). It is useful.g.
Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.g.
1. cultural anthropology and applied psychology.. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. This broader perspective.
. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. 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. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. 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.. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. human motivation. 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. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. attitude theory.
In doing so. Che Ali. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. which deals with methodology. Radin Umar. 2001). with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. Selection of alternate structural
equation models is also discussed.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. To the author’s knowledge.5
Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research
methods are answered fully in chapter 3.
In Study 1. Anderson & Tatham. driving (experience. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. cultural background). driving experience.
The present research applied an ex post facto research design. 2003). the effects of
selected demographic (age. freeway urgency. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. 711).however. first. Babin. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. In each successive study. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. 1B and 1C). three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. p. or outcome. hopelessness. 2006. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. The final result. gender. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. aggression.
Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Study 2 and Study 3. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. externally-focused frustration. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. Black. second. In this case. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. variables (Sekaran. each entailing data collection from a different sample. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors
. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. at the conclusion of Study 1C.
behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.to 45-minute trips. a third model was constructed. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. This
issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.
Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university.
1. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. verbally administered psychometric instruments. These are
discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. in fact. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and.
After the initial model-building had been completed. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 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.are most important in predicting. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments.6
Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design.
Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. Again. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. In Study 2.
In Study 3. over the course of 30.
The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. Are the attitudes. while recognising the distinction. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Katila & Laapotti. 2002. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2.
In a meta-review of traffic safety research. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. Manstead. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. 1990). along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. Boyce & Geller. Keskinen. Baxter & Campbell. 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. at least to a certain extent. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes.
Finally. 1997). as well. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Stradling. The present research. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. However.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. The relationship between the manner
. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5.
when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. there were 341. “patient”. 2005). 2007). 2005). “friendly”.1 2. 2007). inconsiderate and aggressive. in order of frequency. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. 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. Over 6. “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. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. 2007). “reckless”. industrialisation and motorisation. Recently. 2006). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. 1989). “bullies” and “selfish”. in aggregate.1
Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2. to a rapid increase
. “peaceful”. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli.1. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2003). economic expansion. they indicated “angry”. and as a “major public health problem”
(Subramaniam. “impatient”. 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh.
Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 2007). Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”.000
fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. A developing country in Southeast Asia. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. These are thought to have contributed. In newspaper reports. Malaysia has experienced
remarkable increases in population.
415 52.417 47.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.200 9. 2005). in Malaysia.304 in 1994 to 6.815 2005 328. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. 2007). 2005).012 19.236 49. Studies
. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.425 2003 6.645 54.253
source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007)
The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.891 8. Generally.7111 2003 298.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. 2005). Radin Umar.228 9. 2003. 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.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.218 2005 6.000 vehicles in 2006. from 189.000 vehicles (Law.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.287 in 2006. This suggests that studies.885 35.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.091 37.20 deaths per 10.653 2004 326.2).
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. & Wong. Mohd Zulkiflee. Abdul Rahman.264 2006 341.252
Motor Vehicle Casualties
2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.040 2004 6.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.741 38. 2002-2006
Motor Vehicle Crashes
2002 Total 279.98 deaths per 10.286 9. one-
third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.552 37.
Table 2.425 5.
In Malaysia. Subramaniam & Law.287 9. Table 2.395 2006 6.
67 206 0.23 2.47 280 1.29 2.56 3.10 3. in 1999 alone. Morrison & Ryan.07 2.038 13.91 984 4.180 10.953 17.31 3.309 10.05 2.620 7. 2003).54 708 3.06 608 3.086 9.448 17.431 7.178 15.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.
. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.40 1.21 3. general insurers paid RM1.92 1.15 572 2. 2006).049 15. or about 2.48 105 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.025 9. Palamara.61 99 0.45 30 0.005 15.90 159 0.15 3.92 2.418 100 19.49 450 2.034 4. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.023 5. 2005).81 3.7 billion.216 10.967 100 19.81 1.08 2.08 1.50 979 4.947 10. Table 2.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.71 543 2. 2002.65 2.97 1.64 135 0.80 203 0.469 15.85 147 0.16 90 0.05 2.416 6.82 1.110 10.997 14.68 3. 2001).81 2.94 1.551 12.921 100 20.593 11.820 13.67 billion. 2001.205 11.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.37 337 1.22 150 0.4 billion to RM5.76 22. or an average of RM4.41 302 1.84 1.99 164 0.389 6.63 160 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.48 323 1.08 541 2.77 3.27 458 2.709 8. and particularly among younger drivers.315 17.29 708 3.72 554 2.378 11.803 9.26 463 2.341 12.08 585 2.94 625 3.07 2. It has been reported that. 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.15 43 0.85 2.94 2.329 100
source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.11 2.05 1.65 121 0.68 128 0.
and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge.Yet. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. 2006). Criticisms of road configuration. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. The economic consequences can be estimated. which is actually a nightmare. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. 2005). if people want to die? (Lim. 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. Some seven years later. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters
. What else can we do. (Bernama.
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. There is no way to A popular
measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. lane definition. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. 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. In 1999. 1999). or the pain of the maimed.
what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better
how they think. 2001. for instance. 1997). 2007). Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 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. Krishnan & Radin Umar.
Researchers. given greater risks of accident. as compared with 1. 2007). 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. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. unlike in other countries. 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. Those countries have had a
motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. In a recent newspaper interview. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror.(Abdul Rahman et al. 2006). Who they are. 2005). In 2006. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving.
Generally. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 2005). though. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. newspaper columnists. is often mentioned as a factor. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers.
Mohd Nasir. rather than personality factors. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. injuries and fatalities. causal factors underlying crash and injury
rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied.
In the same study. Law et al. perhaps. respectively. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. 1996). 2007). Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. Radin Umar. they
reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Bartle & Truman. Musa. This is. In none of the studies of the MSP. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. In a separate study. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated.
For instance. Chalmers & Langley. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. conspicuity and excessive speeding. however.1. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. Law.
. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Ahmad Hariza.
Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. Ward. MSP
interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes.
This. 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. He argued that. 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. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. According to Williamson. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. the factor that made the high speeds possible. however. The very monotony of the road surface. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”.122). road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities.
. since 1994. has linked peninsular communities. generalising to all driving environments and situations. 121-122). they are accident prone. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 1996). 110).
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.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. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress.
factors are far more important than engineering factors. 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.2. 1991). by far. Åberg. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. This has included the examination of age and gender. personality characteristics (Elander. etc. 1993). The majority of accidents are not caused by
problems of the vehicle. experiential. personality and behavioural
characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. levels of driving experience and. 784). driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. 62).1
The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic.
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.2 2. 1993. bad road conditions.2. Among
engineering factors. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). particularly. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. West and French. Christ. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. but rather
Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. Among human factors. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash.
psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 2002. or at least predict. to a large degree. Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. 1997. motor vehicle crashes has been attributed by af Wahlberg (2003) to three main methodological deficiencies: (a) an absence of reported test-retest reliability of the predictor. weak. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo.by the behaviour of drivers. unclear. 1994). Further. 377). and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. 2004).
The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. Ranney. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. organisational climate (Caird & Kline.
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). prior accident experience (Lin et al. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136
previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of
. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 641). Haddon (1963). the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. 2004) and other contextual variables. Lajunen & Summala. 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.
Underwood & Milton. there has been an interest in driver personality. the lack of replication of many studies. Preston & Harris. 2003). 321).
2. 482). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah.traffic accidents and found to be wanting in one or more of these methodological aspects and concluded that: If these studies are representative of the research done.2. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Nevertheless. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 1997a). especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. information processing. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 1993).2. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 2005). 1996. Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1961.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser.2
The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline
2.2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 2003). 2002.
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 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.
or peculiar to. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. 2002). traffic and transportation. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. medicine. Indeed. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Ochando. in a Spanish survey.” (p.
To wit. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. 246).)
The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. or the psychological support for intervention. According to Rothengatter (2001). 4). conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. 3).654-655. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. anthropology and sociology. transportation planning. in the field of traffic.2. psychology.2. 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. eoncompassing engineering. but that complex traffic
. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. ergonomics. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.
2. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p.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.
1158). 2004. 2002). It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002)
governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. Odero. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. the road infrastructure and other road users. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. In the broadest sense. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 2003. 1997. 2007. in particular. Johnston.
In a recent special edition. Wilson. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. Garner and Zwi. Hyder & Peden. 1995. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. Peden & Hyder. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. as well. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. over the past ten years. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. 24). commented that: From the perspective of the driver. surrounding environments and
. the study of cognitive processes. 2000). which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Stanton (2007) noted that.
Ergonomics has made a contribution. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. the road environment comprises the vehicle.
Theories and Models In attempting to understand. predict and modify road user behaviour.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. Noy. 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. particularly the notions of mental load. 2001). 2006.
According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as:
. “This school of though.3. and “Generation Three” ergonomics. Walker. though. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.
Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. Stanton & Young. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. 26). 2004).
2. 1997. Jannssen.3 2. 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. which
assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. error and cognitive modelling. Neerincx & Schriebers. road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. traffic
psychologists frequently engage in theory-building.
Any set of systematically interrelated
hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. Reasons for this are likely several. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. p. To a degree. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad.3.2
Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. but for the purposes of this thesis. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced.. this may be due to
. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. or accident-causing behaviours. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 2000.
Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 1985). p.
2. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. Healy.
2005). 1969). 1995). many models have been proposed. In traffic psychology. often in mathematical form. each ordering
driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 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. 2005. whether theories should explain everyday driving. in traffic psychology. On the other hand. A-18)
Often. or both. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory.
. 2005).3. perceptions. enjoy driving. cognitive. not all people act exactly alike and this is a
function of their differing values. 2002). given the complexity of human behaviour. Rothengatter. 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. … Just because we as
investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal.3
The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations.the imprecise definition of concepts. minimise delay and driving time. For over ninety years. 2004. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. Instead.
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. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. avoid obstacles. and most of the time is not especially influential. risk adaptation theories. and emotional determinants. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. motives and personalities (Robbins. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. attitudes. feel in control. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. 189).
Notwithstanding these difficulties. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations.
. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. These may be classified as: theories of individual
differences. social. etc.
1995. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of
. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 1980) and other safety outcomes. 1979). the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking.
extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. 1990). poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo.
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). neuroticism. aged 16 to 29 years. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. 2000). found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. anxiety and driving anger. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. but not occupational accidents. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low
conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. aggression. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. However.
According to Rothengatter (2002). for instance. McRae &Costa. conscientiousness.
it should be a reasonably simple matter to find
. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. p. weight and perhaps even intelligence. 1962. just as one can meaure height.finding. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness.152). but persists today. Research by board statisticians.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. the average number of accidents. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. “irrespective of environment. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk.3.3. p. during and following the war years. West & French.
2. 1920). 290). 1993. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. λ. It provided a challenge to the psychology
profession to devise a way to measure it. his or her accident proneness. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. If each individual has a unique λ-value. occupational and otherwise.
According to Haight (2004). differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. personality. sensori-motor skill. in certain cases. 1984). The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual.
In 1917. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. found first that the frequency of accidents.
1997). in successive years. made an assumption that. however. produced a positive. 1991. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. as well. Johnson (1946). 2004). with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 1939) and many others. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. in a Finnish telephone survey. 1929. in any sample. Scores on the λ dimension. more probably psychological (p. None of the experiments. inappropriate. in traffic or when playing
. 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. 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. 1956). motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 294). Farmer and Chambers (1926.
The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. p. subjects reported significant. but did not take into consideration whether. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 195). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. perhaps physiological. 422). The accident-prone concept.out what that value is. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight.
Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. “Because crashes are so infrequent. noting that. by devising clever tests. inadequate or irrelevant. at home. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. 2004). 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.
sports.3.3. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. So. 1998). moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional
. 1980. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. Pijl. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. 1993).. roadway. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 562). Ultimately.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. pp. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. 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. The concept itself is ill-defined. therefore.
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. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. 8-9).
Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. Visser. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. sports and family settings. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.
2. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. Stolk.05. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons.
4. in a study of driving on icy roads. That is. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. experience more accidents than others.3. The introduction of
divided highways. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.
2. crash barriers. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement.
However. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them.
Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of
differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. large earth-moving
following their review of the literature. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. For example.
2. Elander et al. in fact.accident proneness (Chmiel. albeit not crash occurrence.3. substantially. 2000). Wilde (1982. A driver who enters a
construction zone.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.
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.
according to the theory. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. Wilde. Collectively. flat. for example. 1997). 2002).vehicles and warning flags. RHT proponents argued that drivers were
adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2005). “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. according to the theory.
Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 14). Conversely. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. a driver motoring along a wide. is if the level of target risk is reduced. Fosser & Sætermo. In two separate studies. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. 2008. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde.
Initially. Sagberg. That is. uncongested expressway would perceive a low level of risk and would be more likely to reach speeds above the minimum limit or to permit hand-phone distractions. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. p. When others (Haight. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. in turn. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system.” (Fuller. 1988. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. 1986. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. 1994. Ranney. 1989. McHugh & Pender. 2001. Michon. at least until the target risk level was reached. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of
2004). however. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. General consensus is that
behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 1151). Slovic. 53). 2002). it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al.” (Vaa. Also. the community. Lichtenstein. Fischoff. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 1977). 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. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 2002). To the contrary. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. but they are not defined in psychological terms. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. 2008. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. (p. pay sufficient attention to risk.
More than any other driving theory. 1994. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk.. 2001. p. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. Considerable criticism revolves around the
imprecise nature of the theory itself. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. 1989. 223). p. 2004). but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk.
Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Rothengatter..target risk that people are willing to tolerate. or have the knowledge and ability to constantly adjust their behaviour to achieve so-called risk homeostasis is ludicrous in view of what is known about human limitations. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Corrigan & Coombs. Evans
. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual.
experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 81). 2004. while Brown and Noy (2004) noted that it remains possible that factors other than risk underlie the behaviour changes that follow alterations to the traffic system. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 26). increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. In addition. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision.
2. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk.4.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. and
. 1987. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. Summala.3. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 92). for example.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. after a similar review. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. At this point. argued that “these so-called theories that purport to explain human behaviour in the face of risk are nothing more than hypotheses with a large body of empirical evidence refuting the studies that allegedly validate them” (p. O’Neill and Williams (1998). or expecting. Rather. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. In other words. p. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.
Keskinen. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. A large number of studies show that external motives. Van der Hulst. 2002. On the other hand.1). it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. Glad & Hernetkoskis.3. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. 1996. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). as a result.
A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation.
2. Gregersen. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. Summala (1996. age and social variables. 1998. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. 1999). do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and.
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. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Hataaka. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Meijman & Roghengatter. much of which arises from personality. such as time pressure. Reeder et al.learn how to respond safety to. for instance. and specific driver actions. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios.
Passing and other maneuvers
Figure 2.1: Task Cube (from Summala. for example. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a
hierarchy. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. seemingly concurrently. at the same time. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. a property absent within the task cube concept. Automated)
Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control
Lane keeping etc.MOBILITY NEEDS
LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
Decision making Supervisory monitoring
FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS
Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. but that is not
. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. 1996)
Keskinen et al. 15). (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. 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.
2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.
.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Most of the time. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.3. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. high speeds. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. affective states).
Compensatory action by others
Loss of control
C<D Task Demands (D)
Figure 2.1). 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. 252). this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. Fuller
Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. However.g. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2.
Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. time pressure). 1985. Two limitations have been noted. 126).Fuller’s theory has. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.6.7
2. p. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. however. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. 40). Generally. 1991). 2004. objects. Since 1985. and Keskinen et al. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. Fishbein & Ajzen. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. institutions or issues (Chaplin.3. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour.
Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. for the most part. According to the TRA. p. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking.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. people’s behaviour is determined by their
intention to perform the behaviour. 1985.3. emotional state. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. generally referring to a positive or negative
. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date.
2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. see Figure 2.3. then.
2.” (Azjen. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). 24). To deal with this uncertainty. which can usually be performed (or not
performed) at will. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).2). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. According to the TPB.
. p. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. 1985. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. “Even very mundane activities. however (Sharma & Kanekar.
behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 2007).7.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”).
creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed.
. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. 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. or sense of self-efficacy.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Further. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 2002. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). 1989) Within the theory. when intention is held constant. p. greater perceived control (i. 2003). to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 253).Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations
Attitude toward the behaviour
Normative beliefs and motivation to comply
Control beliefs and perceived facilitation
Perceived behavioural control
Figure 2.. In one study. It has been applied to every conceivable type of road user behaviour and has reliably been able to produce comparatively robust relations between the model components and the behaviour in question” (Rothengatter.
The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian.e. 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. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.
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. Attitude toward speeding. subjective norms and PBC were all
significant determinants of self-reported speeding. pedestrians and road environments in a range of
. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological
characteristics of drivers.1. but PBC did not contribute to the prediction of speeding violations measured with an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) device that logged km/hr and location at all times the vehicle was in motion. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Edwards (1996)
developed a spatial model. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect.In another study. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). Austin and Carson (2002).1
Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.2. based on data extracted from police record forms.4 2. vehicles. there
has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.
2. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. but after controlling for distance travelled.
Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.4. for instance. 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. 2002).2).
2. Law.4).4.1 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). the road (R) and the environment (E).
BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT
Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E)
Figure 2.4. Koonchote & Tantiratna.locations and settings (e.2
2. however. R. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1998. 1997. Richardson & Downe. Seow & Lim. Nguntra.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1997)
. E and especially H factors. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.g. Mahasakpan. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.
2.. within specific situational contexts. 1994). 2000). 1999). One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models
that stress the mediational role played by certain V. More recently. the vehicle (V). Swaddiwudhipong. some researchers have argued that the Haddon
Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.
gender.g.2. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e...2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. more proximal variable. Personality factors within the
. sensation seeking. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. extraversion. age. contribute directly to crash outcomes. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.g. it may influence crash risk through some other. on the other hand..5). there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. Within the generic model. as well. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. Factors within the distal context include not only road. By
contrast. aggression). substance abuse) that.
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.2. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.
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. speeding. 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.g.4. on one hand. Therefore. 283). when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.
Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.g. As such.g. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 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.
Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking
e. sensation seeking. e. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. 2003)
. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. psychological symptoms.
Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. risk taking. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. depression. aggression
Figure 2. cultural driving habits and beliefs
Relatively stable personality
proximal variables (including safety skill levels. such that path c′ is zero.2. In Figure 2. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation.6(i). drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency.4. called the outcome.2. for instance. 2006). then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). moderating or mediating effects. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. M. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Also termed intervening variables. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.
Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.
mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. 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. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. If. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. 2003). process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Tix and Barron. Figure 2. 1986). which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2004). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.
. or testing the moderating effect. 2003). and the interaction or product of these two (path c). variable (see Figure 2. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. the impact of a moderator (path b). Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. 1986).(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable)
M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable)
Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes)
Figure 2. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. or independent variable (path a). there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. Only if the interaction (path c) is significant.7): the impact of a predictor.
His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. more relevant to the model he proposed. dangerous drinking).Predictor Variable
c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2.4. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. errors).7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model
2. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. given wide
. anxiety. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. psychoticism).
A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. No
attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. Using structured equation modelling. In turn. and non-professional students who were mostly students. anger). verbal aggression. Further. hostility. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. However. he found that.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.2. hostility. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations.
1998). applied the five factor.
Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Sümer’s 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. 1995. trust). In a
subsequent study. Here. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2002. 2003. 1919. Finally. Sümer. or “Big Five”. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. 2005. Bell. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Elander et. Watson. McRae &Costa.. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). responsibility. 1920). broad-mindedness). al. personality model (Costa & McRae. Greenwood & Yule. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. (1993) and others.739). violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. sensation seeking). in most cases. Day. as recommended by Elander et al.
Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1990) to a similar analysis. 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.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on
. agreeableness (helpfulness. lapses. Edward. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. 1993). Tubré & Tubré. conscientiousness (dependability. Arthur. sensation seeking patterns. for high-λ individuals. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience
negative affect and anxiety). Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency.
prior to the present one. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Berument and Gunes (2005). while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Sümer. self esteem. They found that the effect of proximal variables.aberrant driving behaviours. for instance. Karanci. proximal behavioural variables
mediated personality factors. optimism. Bilgic.
Although no other studies of driving behaviour. including perceived control. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. reported that driver anger.
2. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). yielding support for the contextual mediated model. In another study.2.4.
In other words. 225). Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. material loss. using a similar research design.
. navy. phobia. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. Sümer. hostility. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. air force and gendarmerie. have acted on those recommendations. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. anxiety.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain.
2003).Downe (2007).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Odero et al.. 2002. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.
knowledge transfer ergonomic design safety audits
worker attitude toward safe work perceived management priority employee empowerment and control over safety post-injury administration return-to-work policies operating policies & procedures
lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output reduced accident severity reduced risk assessment standards compliance increased worker satisfaction
locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.. Retting. Type A.. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. 2003. Williams & Shabanova. Weinstein & Solomon.g. 1995).g.8).1
Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables
Safe Work Practices
hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour
safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience
Figure 2.5. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. 1997. Yet. 2007)
2. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.5 2. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes.5. Campbell & Williams.1. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to
drive while fatigued.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. overtake dangerously. 1986). Connery & Stiller. the contrary appears to be true. p. Bina. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Matthews & Moran. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. tobacco smoking. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. However. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. 2007). less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. 2002a. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. at least in part. Vassallo et al. Billittier. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. McDonald (1994) reported
. Jehle. 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. 2002a. follow too closely.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. 221).. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. 1997b. in many cases.
Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. In fact. 2001. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. The former is less experienced at driving. this is a reflection of lifestyle. less emotionally mature. Jonah. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16.
Harré. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. for these difficulties. Moscati.
and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. In the present study. since safe driving among younger
drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. (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. indirectly.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. it was hypothesised in the present study that. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. Ulleberg. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving.
Justification of age-related hypotheses. and that young drivers. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. Vissers & Jessurun. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens.
. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. on crash and injury occurrence. 2002).
Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. Similarly. as age decreased. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. angry or sad (strong negative emotions).39). Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. 2007). particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. Stevenson et al. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence.
g. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. more often at hazardous times (e. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. darkness)” (p. 129).. “In all studies and analyses.1. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.g.4). However. Tavris. 2004. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. without exception. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992).failure to use seat-belts. it was also hypothesised that. as well. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females.
Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. MacGregor. 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. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.5. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. for instance. for instance. Williams and Shabanova (2003)
found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths.
2. for instance.. p. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Waller. it
There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. self-reported injury would also increase. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. as age decreased. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Elliott. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Monárrez-Espino. Shope.
Dobson. (b) females drive increasingly more. 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. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). This is important. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. 2001). Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. reported more traffic citations and injuries. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. to date. Ball. 525526). they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving
. 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.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Brown. 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. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. in a sample taken in the U. worldwide. Lenard. Flyte & Garner. state of Washington. for instance. At the same time. While there is much of value in such an approach. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a)
indicated that. which typically took place during evenings and nights. Woodcock.
Lonczak. Welsh. 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. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing.S. found that while male drivers. 1997.
involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. just as they had in 1978.
In a subsequent report. McKenna. 2003). though. Consistent with the
findings of McKenna et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). control of traffic situations. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. et al. evaluated their driving skill lower. In other research. Female drivers. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. 11). commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. it was hypothesised that males would be more likely to report higher-risk behaviour in traffic and would have higher aggression scores than would females. indirectly. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed.
. were less frequently involved in crash situations. Laapotti. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. on crash and injury occurrence. In the present study. In a study of Dutch drivers. (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. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997.. Lourens et al. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Keskinen and Rajalin
(2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. and loss-of-control incidents.
Justification of gender-related hypotheses.anger. Turner & McClure. on the other hand. The authors in each case concluded that females’ attitudes and self-reported behaviour were becoming increasingly similar to the attitudes and behaviour of male drivers. showing that male drivers were. Forward. 2006. as per the traditional pattern.
To a large degree. Romano.S. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. for instance. nonCatholic countries. Schlundt. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. 2005). On the other hand. Goldweig and Warren. Haliburton.5. Levine. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. differences in fatalities persisted. Summala and Hartley (1998). more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.
A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. In one of the few studies reported. Harper. But. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. Garrett.2. lower rates of safety belt use. Lajunen. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Melinder (2007) compared 15
Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to
. Marine.1. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U.
Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Corry.
harmony with nature.
Differences have not always been consistent. peace. shame-driven. in fact. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. Education.. family honour. respect for elders. filial piety. cultural differences can be more subtle.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations
Man’s relationship with God.
Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses.. They concluded that there were. 2005). While religious affiliation. Karma. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. hierarchical. 2000. brotherhood/sisterhood. Spirituality. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. courtesy. polite behaviour. 1999).
The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. indirectly. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. cooperation. respect for knowledge. Fatalistic. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on
. Roman et al. hard work. on crash and injury occurrence. Strong relationship orientation. Conscious of what other people say about us. Strong relationship orientation. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. Abdullah and
Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. In the present study.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. prosperity and integrity. Family centeredness. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. respect for elders. respect for elders.2). dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. 1999). ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. family ties. humility. Indirect communication. However. religion. face saving. prosperity. piety.
passenger distractions different vehicles. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. Allied to this. Hatakka and Katila. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. Laapotti. and as such. 166). implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.5. 2002). or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. in a given road and traffic scenario. etc. A large number of studies have shown that.2
2. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.
On the other hand.
although not always. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.
Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian
A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended
. Lajunen & Summala. 1971). with different weather conditions. Keskinen. As experience grows. journey lengths. 2001)..
2.2.behaviour in traffic. directionality of the effect was not predicted. 1995.g. as drivers become more experienced. increased experience usually.
Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. in many studies of age and gender
differences. and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. Hataaka and Katila (1992). experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. environment. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves.
. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. Yet. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. direction and position
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.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. Hatakka. as individuals acquire experience. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. 2001). and sometimes confounded by gender differences.9). 2004). Internal models contain knowledge of route. 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. 2000)
The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked.by Keskinen. social context company
MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS
Adapting to the demands of the present situation
Controlling speed. 1996. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. It assumes that. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. including start and
destination point and corresponding visual scenes.
Mintz. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk.
One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. was used in this study. Young novice drivers. A simple measure of driving experience. Brown & Ghiselli. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an
. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers.g.
Justification of driver experience hypotheses. and
especially young male drivers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. 1949. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Ghiselli & Brown. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. Female
novice drivers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Studies of crash predictors among
professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2007).Laapotti et al.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar.. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. on the other hand. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. 1948. Peltzer and Renner (2003). 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. for instance. 1954). 2004).
5. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). driving occurs (Dewar. it is accepted that the more one travels. 1984. 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. 1986. Wilde. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur.
Generally.2. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. indirectly. and type of route where. In individual differences research. 1984). 282). but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. Elander et al. McKenna. Rothengatter. 1991). and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. Pelz & Schuman. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1993). Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. First. on crash and injury occurrence. 2001. the concept is much less well developed. Second. Duncan & Brown. there may be considerable random or
systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. the miles they drive.
2. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night
. 1995.. 2002a). 1971). with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. for instance.
2007.. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. however.
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. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Towner and Ward. without correcting for annual mileage. 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. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. (1986).. 2007. Evans (1991) and others. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on crash and injury occurrence. Mercer (1989) showed that.hours than during the forenoon. Lourens et al. Christie.g.
Justification of exposure hypotheses. In the present study. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. Ferguson. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Cairns. as defined by Elander et al. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. Bina et al. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. in countries like the USA. Teoh & MCartt.
. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. (1999) have argued that.
Odero et al. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Yet. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. 2007). This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. 2006. (1997) reviewed published and
unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. although much research does not (e. indirectly. 2003). young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. (1993). Williams & Shabanova..
Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.5. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. Levenson (1975. 2006.1.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. Hyman. 1990).3
2.. 1991.5. or externals .10).3.5. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P).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. 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. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.
Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. or internals. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. and second. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. 1975.
. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people. In contrast.2. Stanley & Burrows. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. Originally
conceptualised by Rotter (1966.3. 1999). 15).1 Locus of Control 2. she separated the externality dimension into two. Holder & Levi.
2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. According to Phares (1976). a deity or higher power or other external circumstances
Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts.1. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer
intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.
Low Internality High
Externality . 1989. Sinha & Watson.5.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2.Luckner. luck.Chance
Low Externality – Powerful Others
Figure 2. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.
Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.
.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.3.
s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues.
Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.
A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. According to Brown and Noy (2004). however. French & Chan. 1987). however. 39).
. In a subsequent study. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. On the other hand. 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. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 1999).More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. but results have been inconsistent. 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. only partially represented the original locus of control concept.
offences. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality.
On the other hand. (p.
Arthur et al. In an important study. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Gidron. cognitive. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. That is. They found that. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. In a similar study
investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. 1260). In a much earlier study. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. Gal and Desevilya (2003) investigated the interaction between road-hostility and internal locus of control in predicting the occurrence of self-reported dangerous driving behaviour (DDB). it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. This study
provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving
personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. although internality was unrelated to DDB. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability.
2. India. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more
. Germany. Canada and Japan. complexity and unpredictability.1. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Noting that Chinese culture.3. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. as hypothesised. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. (1991).behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Israel. 122).
Their results. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. and the USA.5. Italy. is based on the notion that … luck. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Hsieh. which is considered to be full of ambiguity.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Noy (1997). Japan. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. In very early research. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. indicated that. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. France.
More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures.
due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control.
In very early research. 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. only Cheung. Chinese and Indian populations. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. all internal characteristics. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Chinese of Malay extraction. This was very true for the locus of control variable.
To the author’s knowledge. Cheung. 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. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. At the same time. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. skill and ability. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2).
. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure.
1973). Finally. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. 1975.
2. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. et al.3. 2005). while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. 1987. 1975). Fox & Klerman. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Beresford & Neilly. 2007). 1991. (2003). 2007. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. without objective basis. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.5. Weissman. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Cases usually
. 1997. Gilbody. Niméus. Kovacs and Weissman. McMillan. 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. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. 1995. Özkan & Lajunen. In the present study. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Sinha & Watson.
Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Montag & Comrey. on crash and injury occurrence. indirectly. Ohberg. First.
investigated the relationship between hopelessness. including risky driving. assertiveness and positive emotion. 1997. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. luck. Very early on. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. Selzer & Payne. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1976. in a more detailed study. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. Mendel.. Prociuk. Breen and Lussier (1976). 1998. in fact. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. on crash and injury occurrence. Several authors. In the present study. 1990.
Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). it was
. 1974). 1962). mental disorders and alcohol misuse.
Second. indirectly. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. Henderson. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Firestone & Seiden. 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. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 1962). it was suggested that “many persons with self-destructive inclinations may unconsciously attempt to destroy or injure themselves through automobile accidents and that these accidents are rarely perceived as suicidal attempts by either the driver or the public” (Selzer & Payne. for instance. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. They also classified a group of
drivers whose highly negligent actions.
Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. including subjective feelings of stress. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Underwood. and deindividuation. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion.
. 1999. physiological arousal.3. Chliaoutaks. 2002). which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 2003. 2006). Mizell.5. Deffenbacher. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. & Darviri. learned disinhibitory cues. Bakou.. In a largely unrelated study. 2002. 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. Tzamalouka. 2000. Chapman. Lynch & Oetting. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors.
2. Malta & Blanchard. Barton and Malta. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2000. Richards. Koumaki. Wells-Parker et al. learned cognitive scripts. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Filetti. 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. Demakakos. Wright & Crundall. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.
angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. such as TAPB. 1962). stress induced by time pressure. though. Bettencourt. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. 1976.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Groeger (2000). but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). Talley. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. (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. through the use of self-statements. threat to own safety and self-eesteem.
Schwebel et al. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. More recently.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. Crowson. the display of aggression (p. Snyder. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency
. 163). Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. as another. rather than a cause of. 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. However. Ellis. lack of control over events. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Houston.
Kamada. (2003). consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 1981. indirectly. Sato.6 2.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. competitiveness. Magnavita. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur.
. 2000. Later still. Williams & Haney. Elofsson & Krakau. Miyake. and specific content. Lynch. that the total amount.. Blumenthal.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. James & Nahl. aggression. 2006). Frueh & Snyder. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 2002. Bettencourt et al. on crash and injury occurrence. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Thurman. Sani. Petrilli.
In the present study. McKee. impatience.
aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999.6. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Undén.
2. 2001). it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. It was also hypothesised. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Rice. Deffenbacher. 1999. al. 1998.
Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 2006. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et.
Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. insecurity about status. 1999). Karlberg. 1985). Carbone. Kumashiro & Kume. Narda. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson.
and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. where Type A drivers were 4. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. Karlberg et al. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). alcohol consumption. 1989. studied police officers in Italy. 1979) and number of accidents. driving style. age. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. for instance. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Nabi et al. Chastang. was driving frequency. They found a robust
association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. 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. category of vehicle. gender. 1990). however. (1998). Although there is some
evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen.
Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. 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. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. West. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. focused on the time urgency component
. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Zzanski & Rosenman. Consoli.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. In a correlational study of British drivers.
Nabi. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. socio-professional category.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). however. In none of these studies. but not with accident risk. Raikkonen. Chiron. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. similarly.
only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). Miles and Johnson (2003).of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. on the other hand.6. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Of the four BIT
factors. 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. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation.
2. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. 1977).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. At the same time. If all four BIT factors
contribute to accident proneness. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. 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). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. namely “externally-focused frustration”. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). Gender. ethnicity. Glass.
In a subsequent study. then use of the Type A/B
. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that:
Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B
To the author’s knowledge. In the present study.
They argued that it would be preferable. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. locus of control. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. and “destination-activity
orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. although ethnicity. on the other hand. At the present time. aggression and the amount and content of
. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. 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. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985.
Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. ethnicity. 13). driving experience. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. including gender. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that.
In neither of their studies. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. Similarly. Specifically. though. hopelessness. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. 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.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. that are measured by the BIT scale. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated.
Miles & Johnson. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. 2005. 2003. externally-focused frustration..hostile automatic thought. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. Nabi et al.
. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 1993) and. West et al. 1986. 1985). freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. Further.. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
3. with the addition of a third psychological variable. 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. 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. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one.1). In Study 1C. each study explored the extent to which demographic.3).1
Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. In Study 1B.
. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 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.2). Then. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 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. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 1B and 1C. aggression (see Figure 3. The extent to which drivers’ self-reported behaviour in traffic (BIT) predicted motor vehicle crash occurrence and injury occurrence was assessed first by examining each of five successive samples of drivers. the present research
attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3.
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
25). but not chance. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. affective.
3. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. Weissman.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained.
3. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. Lester and Trexler (1974). For each of the five studies undertaken. 1994).2. overlapping and ambiguous. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the
definitions of anger. cognitive. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. a separate score for internality (I). 1999). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.5
Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its
Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised
by negative expectancies. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. a thought process that expects nothing. In the present research. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. For the purposes of the present research.
2003. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). Vallières.2.6
Hostile Automatic Thoughts While the role of cognitive self-talk in directing behavioural responses has been
accepted since the early work of Beck (1976). (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. frustration. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. Bergeron & Vallerand. hitting or interpersonal violence.
3. 1996). generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. In the present research. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. Specifically. 1957. 2005). through fighting. Deffenbacher. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. Lynch & Morris. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. and.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. The effects of participants’ total aggression. social alienation and paranoia. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. Oetting. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as:
. were also investigated. The present
research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. expressed through the presence of irritability. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al.
competitiveness. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving.7
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the
self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. frequent lane changing. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. not allowing others to merge or overtake. and. hit or kill another individual. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. the BIT score.g. characterised by excessive impatience. 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.
3.. (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. 1998). A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.2.. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward
to the extent of inattention conditions. and.
Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically.2. the influence of driving experience.
while driving.them (e. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic
. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.
3. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.2.. three demographic variables (driver age. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3 3. Then. 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. In the resulting measure of this variable. Then. In the resulting measure of this variable.3.9
Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical
treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). 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. travel frequency. in Study 1A.8
Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.
Figure 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Then.2
Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-
reported travel frequency. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the influence of driving characteristics. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.3
Study 1C In Study 1C.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. In Study 1B. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. travel frequency. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. three demographic variables (driver age. 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. Then. (b) the moderating effect of locus
. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Finally. Figure 3. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. Then.
3. In this study.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the influence of driving characteristics.3. three demographic variables (driver age. In this study. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Finally. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. travel frequency. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.3.
or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. Finally.
. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. using a sample that indicated
motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. Figure 3.5
Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.
3. In Study 3. Then. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. First.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Figure 3. This was justified for three reasons.
3. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Finally. the influence of
experience. 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. Two measures of
experience were included: (a) driving experience. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.3.
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.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.3. In Study 3.4
Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. and (b) taxi experience.
the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.2.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.
3.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1. Second.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score
.2.1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic
H2. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated:
Table 3. Third.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H220.127.116.11: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes
H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile
automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic
H8.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control
H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship
H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression
H10.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y
H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H11.2.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic
H3.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H18.104.22.168.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.Table 3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others
Y Y Y Y Y Y
H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness
H5.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H22.214.171.124: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship
H9.3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation
.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness
H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic
H7.1.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.
5 3. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.Table 3. using the same procedures as in Study 1. 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.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score
H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship
H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: 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: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1 (continued)
STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3
Y Y Y
H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship
H12. Participants from the first round of data collection were
included in Study 1A.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1
Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in
peninsular Malaysia.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: 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
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the
.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation
3. within a 14-month period. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.
This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. during a point to point trip.
3.time when they travelled. 1978).
Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated..1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Stokols. Novaco.5. Data collection took place within the taxicab.
Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.g. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. In all cases.5. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. 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. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. I try to urge its driver to move
. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A).
Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Stokals & Campbell.2. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. in the case of Study 3 participants. by postal mail.2
3. For inclusion in the study. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. while participants were driving.
91) were found to be internally consistent. to school or to an appointment with someone.
Table 3. as indicated in table 3. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” “While travelling to work (or to school). Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B
(which correlated .” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. On each form.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “On a clear highway. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Freeway urgency
III. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.
In a later study. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. with a coefficient alpha of . I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. of items
“When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Usurpation of right-ofway
No.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. Destination-activity orientation
II.80. Externally-focused frustration
IV.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor
I.2. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.
It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. A sample item is “When I get what I want. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control.
High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”.
Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. References to the faster. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. 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.5. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”).Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon.2.
3. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability.
. 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”.
3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire
Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20.
3. 1974). I might give him or her the silent treatment. if not. I may tell them what I think of them.2. 1982. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. if endorsed.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.3. 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”.5.3 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. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.” “If I’m angry enough. verbal aggression.”
. 1996).” “When someone really irritates me.2. Table 3. Of the 20 true-false statements.” “When people annoy me. 1993.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Durham. 2005. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.3). Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. Tanaka et al. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. or 0.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want.5. and five subscales measure physical aggression.” “I get into fights more than most people. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. Beck et al. I may mess up someone’s work. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. anger.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.
gender.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 1996).4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor
Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total
No. 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. 1997.2. with coefficient alpha values of . .4). Shapiro.91 for physical aggression.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .71 to .88 and . age.
3.92. Snyder et al.5.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.
.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. 1997. Cascardi & Pythress. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Boyd. 2000). 5 = “all the time”).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. Three factors – physical aggression.2.” “I want to get back at this person. Williams.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge respectively.
Table 3. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.”
3. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.5. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. of Items
11 10 9 30
“If I could get away with it. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.
In studies 1 and 2. with an e-mail summary of results. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. BHS.3. between the two forms of the BIT.6. Levenson and BIT scale. Levenson. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Study 1C: PIF. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Study 1B: PIF. BIT scale. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. in random order. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. BHS. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. upon request. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.
After the briefing period.6 3. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. BHS. AQ and HAT. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Levenson.1
Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly-
scheduled class periods.
. 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.
Two to four times daily. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. 2002).
3. four female final-year undergraduate students. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL.
with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. Data collection took place in taxicabs. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 2004). 13.
Independent-sample t-tests. For safety reasons. Taxis were flagged down at roadside.5. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures.
provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. as well.
analyses of variance (ANOVA).
. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. rel.2
Study 3 For study 3. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. At initial contact. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. AQ and Levenson scales. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study.5. Over the course of the trip.6. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Levenson Locus of Control scale.0. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. The PIF was always administered first. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. 8. rel.3.7
Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS for Windows. aged 22 to 24 years.
Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. BIT.
1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control
H4.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: 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
H6.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
.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: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age influence the Locus of Control
Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness
H5.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression
The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT
H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT
H7.Table 3.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement
H1.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.
1: The higher the Internality.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: 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
H12.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation
Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression
The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT
H13.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration 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: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.5 (continued)
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT
H8.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Age influences the level of Aggression
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT
H11.2: The higher Externality (Chance).3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.Table 3.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts
Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance
.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9. the lower the BIT level H8. the higher the BIT level H8.
locus of control. hopelessness. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.
When significant differences were observed. locus of control. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.1
Independent-sample t-tests Generally.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. In the present
study. hopelessness.Table 3.3: 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. In the present
research. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.
Data Analysis Methods
The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT
H14.2: 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. 2000).7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.7.
. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.2
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.
Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness.
Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent
variable and independent variables. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.
3.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). In the present research. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. to test
whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).3.4
Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent
variable and an independent variable and. In the present research. hopelessness. In the present research. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. second.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.7. if so. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. Also.
3. For instance.
3. In the present research. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. on the other hand. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation.7.6
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. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.7. 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). 710). Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an
influence on the outcome variables. 3. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. Covariates (driver experience and travel frequency) and the independent variable (BIT) were entered into the logistic regression equation to predict the probability of participants’ crash and injury occurrence.7 Structural Equation Modelling. In the present research. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. using LISREL. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. logistic regression.
The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. That is. SEM was carried out. Goodness-of-fit indicates how
the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross-
. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. Thus. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). 2006. If a
researcher’s theory were perfect. in fact. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. including: (1) two absolute indexes. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. Incremental fit measures
included the comparative fit index (CFI). the better the model is said to fit.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. 1998). Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated.
The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. p. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. (Hair et al.
In the present research. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. 1998) – presently exists. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. (1988). the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other.. For Study 1C. 745). According to Marsh et al.
the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. and a measure of parsimony fit. Hair et al. one incremental index.7.7. the ratio indicates a good fit. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al.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.
. an insignificant p-value is expected. Thus. 2006). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 112). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.7.validation index (ECVI). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7. However. 1998).1 Chi-Square (χ2).3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. the normed fit index (NFI). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 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..
3.7. the higher the probability associated with χ2.7.0. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. pp.00 in which values greater than .10 indicate poor fit. 2006).
3. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 1998. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.
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. the normed fit index (NFI.7.7. Thus.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.7.00 with value closes to 1.00.7.00.00.7.
. an RMR greater than . The index can range from zero to 1.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. Tanaka & Huba.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit.. The index ranges between zero and 1. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.00 with value more than .
3. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al. Bentler & Bonnet.
3. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. Values range from zero to 1.00 being indicative of good fit.
3. 2006). with higher values indicating better fit. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 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.7.
A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 2006.7. Mulaik & Brett.3. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. Browne & Cudeck. Although values range from zero to 1. 1994). p.7. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. Like other parsimony fit indices.00.
3. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. considering its fit relative to its complexity.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. In such cases. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.. 2006).7. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.
. 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. Values range between zero and 1. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. James. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models..
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.00. 750). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. It should be noted that. in this case.
the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.3.
Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. 37).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. 1956). and platykurtic if it is less peaked. in this case. p.
3. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. If the opposite holds. 1976. 2000). If a distribution is assymetrical and the larger frequencies tend to be concentrated toward the low end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the high end. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. In this case. it is said to be positively skewed.7. 1976).05.
Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing
. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=.7. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.
normality of variable distributions.
. Marcoulides & Hershberger. A commonly used guideline is that. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 2005. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 1997). Barrett & Morgan.
9% 977 100% 100%
. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).9% 23.5% 6. Then.
Table 4.1% 536 100% 54. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.4% 146 14.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1
Description of the Samples Age.1). with a mean age of 20.13 years (SD = 1.1. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.6% 12. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian
university. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.
4.1 4. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.6% 82 15.1% 34.55).3% 8.4% 333 62.1% 121 22.9%
Total 441 100% 45. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.1% 562 57. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.4% 269 27. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.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 33.6% 15.5% 57.9% 14.CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter presents the results of the research.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.5% 27.
In Study 3. followed by Malay (27.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese.
In Study 1C. range from 18 to 29).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.
In Study 1A. with a mean age of 20.53.01 years (SD = 1. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.25 years (SD = 1. with a mean age of 19. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. range from 18 to 27). range from 18 to 25). 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent).89 years (SD = 1.
In Study 1B.68. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.
In Study 2. 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.9 per cent). 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.35.43 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. with a mean age of 20. range of 18 to 26).
Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.19 years (SD = 11.3% of the sample. Johor or Perak made up 53.65
Male Female Malay
105 175 88 73 133
196 127 164 49 0
68 87 81 33 55
202 166 128 66 52
31 49 43 23 26
Note: N=sample size .9 2.53 1. range from 23 to 73).4% of the sample. Kuala Lumpur. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.89 20. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Table 4. 2 and 3
Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.63 11.3). SD = standard deviation
4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.25 43.01 20. 1B and 1C were all students at a single
Malaysian university.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. The mean age was 43.
Table 4.5 8.7 4.2.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 7.68 1.3 11.
Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.2: Age.43 19.19 S.35 1.1. 1.1 6.
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.5 1.5 14.1.3
Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.8 11.4 4.9% of the sample. As the sample was
.4). Perak or Penang made up 50.6 100
4.0 10.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu
67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855
7.0 7.2 3.7 11.9 0.4: 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 % 13.8 5.6 1.2 17.8 9.7 100
4.1% of the sample.1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.9 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. but
again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4 0.6 2.7 3.2 2.
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.
4.2. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. 1978).5). 2000). This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.2 4. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.
In the present research. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.1
Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and
precision of a measurement procedure. 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.
.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.
.783 .783 .738 .727 .737 .756 .715 .817 .720 .808 .701 .739 .782 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results
Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers
Study 1C (N=252)
α .703 .904 .827 .786 .733 .734 .742 .798 .784 .906 .720 .887 .910 .830 .735 .740 .730 .701
.741 .890 .772
α .788 .754 .740 .808 .715 .702 .738
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9
.811 .Table 4.714 .711 .774 . of Item α
Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers
Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .727 .824 .707 .718 .810 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable
α .781 .
10 indicate a mediocre fit.804 .803 .811 .3
Validity Test Results In the present research. 1985).801 . 1998). we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. more than .08 to . values ranging from .807 .804 Study 1C .800 .2
Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.
Table 4.953 .805 . The results of parallel-form
reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.903 . depending on which is used (Byrne.808 Study 2 . with minimal error variance caused by wording. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.857 .10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. In Study 3. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.05 indicate good fit.6. only Form A was used. and those greater than .2.2.876 . 1998). RMSEA values less than . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog &
Sörbom.804 .916 . Byrne. 1998). 1998.958 .929 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. it was also possible to measure reliability as a
coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.80 or above).4. Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.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 .802
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. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.807 Study 1B .806 .
the higher the goodness-of-fit).7. externally-focused frustration. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.000 .93 .98 1.90. Table 4. If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.061 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .00
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.90.00 . A third statistic.000
4.000 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 1.089
. indicating good fits.024
.99 .074 .097 .097
.000 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 1.077 .00 .00
.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.00 1. and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency.98 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A
Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation
.91 .00 .96 .95 1.00 (the closer to 1.000 .000 .048 .98 1. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.047 .96 .3.99
. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.96 . 1992).98
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 1.00 1.2.97 1.92 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.97 .000 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.098 .91 .00.070 .92 1.98 .100.00 1.054
. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 1.00 .000 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. it is possible to have negative GFI.00 .00 1.99
. As shown in Table 4.92 .00 1.99
.085 .3. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).91 .96 .96 .081 .92 .2.93 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).030 .096
Table 4. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression
. RMSEA values were less than .2. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.91 .93 .98 .95
.93 .081 .4.083 .8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
.95 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.91
.98 . verbal aggression (VER).96
.93 .93 .98
Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other)
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97
.058 .99 .93
.085 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .091
. anger (ANG).00 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.059 .000 .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).063
. CFA revealed that parameter values for I.95 .8.99 .90.92 .
.096 .97 .97 .97 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.
Table 4.97 .98 .095 .95 .96
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.98
.97 .97 .98 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .047 .92 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C)
RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI
.9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B
Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.98 .95 .98 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.070 . RMSEA values were less than .(IND).3.081 .098 .9).97
Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.083
.089 .090 .98 .088
.081 .98 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .100. indicating good fit (see Table 4.97
.2.055 .94 .058 .10).96 .90. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.098 .98 .98 .92 .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
.90. and both GFI and CFI were more than . CFI= Comparative Fit Index
4.96 .100.99 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98
Table 4.92 .96
.025 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). derogation of others and revenge.93
.070 .94 .
191) 1.280) -.085) 1. 2005.239 (.106) 1.140) -.351 (.297 (.010 (.332 (..034 (.246(.140) -.3
Normality.069) 1.560(.140) -.085 (.192(.280) -.656(.219 (.080(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .140) -.064) 1.560(.05).805(.102) 1.105 (.428) .280) . Table 4.226 (.331(. 1997).409(.203(.140) -.280) -.052) 1.085 (.190) 1.140)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.099) 1. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.107) 1.280) .280) .356 (.022 (.410(.962 (.099) 1.297(.140) -.085) 1.241(.192) 1.091) 1.091(.582(.094 (.409(.4.126(.064(.11: Normality Tests.146(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.256 (.140) -.099(.875(.082 (.186) 1.179(.280) . Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and
therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.
Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.064(.280) -.280) .140) .280) .278(.719(. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.091(.140) . Table 4.179(.280) -.120) 1. In all cases.280) .020 (.140) .140) .183) 1.280) . values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.278(.280) -.140) .140) .057) 1.511(.183) 1.408(.037(.297(.280) -.353(.140) .280) .323 (. 2006).920(.140) -.140) -.453(.107 (.280) -.379(.280) .126(.099(.140) -.260) .280) .140) .11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.140) -.195 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.280) -.280) .403(.154(.204(.188(..
306) .210) -.719(.153) 983(.153) .435) -.300(.360) .306) .360) .321) 1.435) -.417) .024 (.962 (.467(.359 (.022 (.219) -.435) -.11 (continued)
KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level)
Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error)
Skewness Statistic (Standard Error)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.153) .962(.131(.640(.807 (.011 (.503(.822 (.104) 1.360) -.812(.256(.142(.159(.359 (.153) .153) .463(.024 (.497(.277(.366) 1.210) .153) .414(.435) .120(.051) .219) -.007(.841(.153) -.681(.417) -.265) 1.435) -.187) 1.153) .443(.306) .913 (.210) .451(.533) .799(.098) 1.293 (.088 (.952(.106(.022 (.884(.210) .110 (.210) .715(.417) -.210) -.919 (.324(.244(.911 (305) 1.306) -.030(.417) -.306) -.501(.852(.306) .064) 1.057) 1.435) -.219) .327 (.392(.979(.417) .052) 1.153) .153) .297 (.Table 4.219) .567(.219) .001 (.366(.070 (.210) .417) -.852(.138(.186(.915(.510) 1.264) .106 (.099) 1.106(.209(.973(306) .994(.362(.223 (.567(.270) 1.210)
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation
Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
.147(.210) .153) .053(.279 (.098) 1.053(.135) 1.210) .267) .306) -.157) .219) .295(.156(.236(.713(.101) 1.214) 1.271(.913(.102) .306) .276(.210) .266 (.130(.540(.306) -.354 (.317) 1.210) -.959 (.128 (.306) -.153) .417) -.940(.417) -.259) .417) .948(.154) -.370(.435) -.052) 1.537(.276 (.198(.360) .128) .048(.195 (.153) .219) -.006(.219) .138) 1.978(.100) .417) .084) 1.051) 1.426) .423(.469) 1.417) -.153) .062(.805 (.972(.247) 1.338 (.147(.417) -.160 (.375) 1.247) .435) -.003 (.629(.478(.986 (.113 (.306) -.153) -.847 (.
.3 per cent being hospitalised. column c).12. with 44. injury occurrence was much higher.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. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.
Table 4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence
OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2
More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. However. For motorcycle drivers.12.13). column a). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.12. if so. column b).
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122)
Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855)
Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4.14) Regardless of ethnic background.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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
. 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: Crash Occurrence Frequency.
standard deviations and relationships
between distal.17 shows means. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal
aggression (VER).05). in Study 1B. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.05). proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. 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.1
Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not
significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.05). crash occurrence and crash injury. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.
Table 4.16 shows means. All these correlations were significant (p<. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.
Table 4.5 4.4. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships
between distal.5.15 shows means.
Study 1B. However. freeway urgency. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. externally-focused frustration.
Study 1C. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. 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.
.D.513** .345** 1 -.44 4.01 level (2-tailed)
-.247** .371** .64 7.562** -.901** .716** .211** .08 2.57 4.662** 1 .625** .202** .Table 4.533** .147* .476 .239** .516** 1 -.209** 1 .5 5.416**
1 .388** .942** 1 .15: Means.201** .69 24.749** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
9.482** .316** .155** .186** .78 .376** .306** .553** -.58 .434** .191** .3455 .152** .147* -.405** .376** .036 .804** .435** .246** . 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.218** .027 1 .818** 1 .231** .23 2.471** .97 43.381** .331** 1
* Correlation is significant at .278** .544** -.391** -.339** .00 165.280** .396** .340** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .76 3.2691
6.88 7.45 6.96 19.22 3.04 26.342** -.52 34.
550** .3079 .380** .816** .418** .06 3 2.140* .84 7.45 5 87.380** .462** .69 8.039 .324** .153** .779** 1 -.353** .103 -.55 9 21.334** .481** .509** .200** .236** .366** .85 9.363** .86 6.254** .337** .103 -.372** .516** .271** .355** .225** .531** .586** .150** .355** .56 2 4.01 level (2-tailed)
.25 8 18.342** .53 19.341** .964** 1 .089 -.286* .5 6 17.847** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.763** .148* .518** .411** .254** .343** .386** .855** .178** .489**.003 .5695 .213** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .438** 1 .587** 1 -.50 5.602**
.22 4.520** .071 .051 .167** .355** .162** .347** 1 -.240** .310** .445** .514** .4960 17 .496** .275** .542** .731** .378** .393** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .298** .452** .408** .013
.312** 1 -.382** 1 -.440**.434** .159 -.48 5.461** .66 3.669** 1 -.443** .505** .82 7 13.028 -.9 28.147** .9 13 46.48 3.430** .523** .172** .279** .515** .584** -.213** .43 12.400** .491** .028 .176* .331** .401** .272** .276** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302)
Mean S.319** .195** .540** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Distal Variables1 1 9.254** .172** .97 4 4.358** .369** .099 .91 15 27.294** 1 .521** .403** .448** .842** 1 .16: Means.697** 1 .407** 1 -.173* .376** .335** .4624
1 -.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 .491** .816** .157** .00 14 19.921** .555** .278** 1 -.41 3.213** .60 10 16.762** .9 12 71.331** .84 5.338** .14 4.D.463** .343** .067 -.688**.Table 4.444** .414** .268** .
275** .075 .05 -.641** 1 4 4.311** .081 .221** .016 .506** .320** .387** .174** .281** .254** .130** .254** .196** .230** .454** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .446** .81 -.051 .323** .167** .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 .264** .17 -.224**.592** .70 3.357** .588** 1 14 20.451** .151* .281** .150* .245** .97 -.747** .402** .308** .355** .31 -.313** .178** .615** .162**.03 -.278** .483** .261** .310** .185** .395** 1 11 65.484** .304** .218** .502** .422** 1 9 22.81 5.9 -.749** .98 4.565** .183** .481** .109 .8 -.226** .838** .422 -.296** .230 .166** .210** .366** .373** .378** .508** .307**.241** .277** 1 8 19.109 .199**.296** .428** .291** .42 3.227** .895** 1 13 26.91 -.343** .293** .18 -.526** .191** .302** .191** 1 3 .202** .181** .37 6.235** .148** .120 .89 5.-181** .183** .038 .70 1 2 4.434** .270** .7 -.298** .216** .158** .069 .17 -.252** .183** .17: Means.354** 1 5 88.476** .348** 1 6 16.259** .383** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .106 .209** .377** .349** 1 16 67.057 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252)
Mean S.545** .119* 1 21 .278** .534** 1 18 19.270** .11 12.246** .103** .292** .265** 1 19 25.01 level (2-tailed)
.324** .Table 4.268**.192** .250** .101**.49 6.D.271** .69 -.131* .139** .58 9.082 .294** .80 17.36 -.735** .292** .401** .390** .306** .00 -.338** .258** .141* .38 5.304** .275** .516 .465** .413** .202** .31 3.222** .235** .189** .385** .286** .52 7.228** .095 .412** .186** .210**.725** .305** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Distal Variables1 1 10.367** .364** .192**.229** .356** .166** .856** 1 17 43.501 .219** .228** .151* .224** .259** .150* .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.314** .137* .392** .9 -.404** .424** 1 12 18.342** .241** .531** 1 10 16.306** .7 28.530** .199** .076 .230** .277** .745** 1 7 13.368** .85 19.221** .203** .296** .193**.423** .379** .263** .64 -.288** .86 -.518** .212** .78 8.345** .003 .110 .251** .277**.70 8.03 5.370** .456** .343** .340** .862** .402** .189** .448** .804** .364**.095 .67 7.033 .
but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury.2
Results of Study 2 Table 4.
.18 shows means. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence.
Similar to observed results in study 1A. 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.
proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.5. standard deviations and relationships between distal. externally-focused frustration.
4. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. all BIT subscales. However. 1B and 1C. freeway urgency. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.
179 7.06 20.167 .562** 1 .043 .758** 1 .183*
1 .418** .240** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .55 175.66 1.413** .251** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3.212* .30 .139 .313** 1 .941** 1 .165
. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122)
Mean Distal Variables 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality-Powerful-Others (P) 4 Hopelessness (BHS) Proximal Variables 5 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 6 Usurpation of right-of-way 7 Freeway Urgency 8 Externally-Focused Frustration 9 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 10 Crash Occurrence 11 Injury Occurrence S.111 -.028 1 .122 7.200* -.291** .5738
8.614** .349** .D.290** .383** .01 level (2-tailed)
.14 27.334** .48 5.500** .917 3.371** -.182* -.367** .18: Means.219** .072 .76 48.580** 1 .876** .415** .025 -.192* -.323 23.081 8.233** .485 11.356** .226** .6803 .269** .374** .4966
1 .325** .4683 .Table 4.413** 1 .150 -.880 .314** .50 73.795** 1
* Correlation is significant at .66 5.259** .750** .376** .035 3.317** .264** .428** .232** .535**
.201* .621 3.409** .630** .
As indicated in Table 4. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 1C and 2. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1B.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. In general.19 shows means.5. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.
. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.19. In this study. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. correlations between I and distal. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.4. Differing from Studies 1A.
636** .025 -.65 75.032
1 .418** .35 11.153**
1 .618** 1 .3 6.454** .178** .05 3.060 -.45 19.023 -.872** .092** .117 .371** .43 8.218* .177
.161 -.020 .200* .4 5.149 .148* .151 -.816** .109 -.D.06 2.149 .12 4.235** .028 .150** .88
1 .42 66.51 3.194* .171
.643** .240** .023 .197* .07 8.276** .182* -.54 11.84 2.240** .864** 1 .173* .13 3.180** .622** .576** .103 .443**
1 .117 .152 .018 -.222* .194*
1 .19: Means.588** 1 .156 .172** .117 .072 .116 .234** .091 -.01 level (2-tailed)
.120 .17 20.08 15.165 .039 .271** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133)
Mean S.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .263** .0301 .82 11.11 15.193* -.246** .74 15.289** 1 .054 .021
* Correlation is significant at .268** . 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
12.31 8.114 .378** 1 .807** .141 .106 .095 .604** .15 32.061 .040 .853** .060 .166 .401** -.2000 .048 .338** 1 .091 .528** 1 .013
.257** .749** .286*
1 .245** .204* .99 10.561** 1 .121 .070 -.167** .32
7.521** .373** .213** .030 .404 .156 .646** .261** .721** .213** .82 5.275** .229** .235** .225** .292** .254**
-.067 .658** .147** .32 3.112 -.072 -.255** .236** .121 .10 1.071 .324** .Table 4.128 .
p<. 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=.172.01.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=.01 B=.117.095.1.1 through H1.1. p<.238. These results supported H1. p<.01
.034.278. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.080. p<. p<.102.1.229. H1.01.315.3 inclusive. p<. Study 1B: B=.01 B=. p<.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence
Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.1
Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<. p<.01 Study 1C B=.048.088 p<.180.1. Study 2: B=. For the destination-activity factor.090.01 B=. p<.4. p<.063.135. p<.01.125. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.063.01 B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash
When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01).202.6. p<.1).6
Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in
chapter 3 (see Table 3.01 and Study 3: B=.01 B=. p<.01 B=.041.146. p<. p<. These results supported H1.01 B=. but not destination-activity orientation. p<.120. p<. p<.01 B=.095.01 B=.01 B=. Study 1C: B=.01 B=.01 B=. freeway urgency. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. and externally-focused frustration. Table 4.20).
4. p<.01 Study 1B B=.4 was not supported.
p<.140.120. p<. p<.24.01).054. p<. p<.035.118.22.01 B=.01 B=. Study 1B: B=. p<. 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. p<.05 Study 1B B=.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence
Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Table 4.087. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.019.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.6.074.01 B=.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant
4.069.01 B=.064.01 B=.059.01 B=.01 B=.23 and Table 4.01 and Study 2: B=.
When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.033 p<.158.01 B=.091. p<.21).
.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=.095. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=. p<.038. p<.165. respectively). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. Study 1C: B=.035.075 p<. p<. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01.2. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 Study 1C B=. p<. These results supported H1. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. freeway urgency.01.
05.64 26.68 26.25 25.35
Table 4.60 185.77
8.22: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301)
Variable Driver experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Travel frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.35 33.98 33.52 25.73 170.25
. * p<.43 20.01 N M SD F
186 88 18 9
161.41 167.88 28.82 168.77 165.64
110 81 37 45 29
181.29 21.35 24.15 161. N M SD F
221 60 19 2
64 110 41 17 69
173.32 147.98 171.23: 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<.89
28.30 22.31 161.16
25.56 175.06 19.01.32 28.48 171.
67 69 33 45 38
170.06 160. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. Drivers who travelled about
once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01 14.81 167. drivers who travelled everyday had
significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. On the other hand. In Study 1B.77 16.060**
In Study 1A. N M SD F
187 46 16 3
15.73 157.05). * p<.73 24.00
16. In Study 1C. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.14 15.Table 4.01).05.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.52
3.05). 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<.
. and those who almost never travelled (p<.05).39 19.01).01). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01).01.06
8.53 17.00 14.
In Study 2.01).24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252)
Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<. about once every two weeks (p<.25).12 161.61 165.12 154.88 167.
71 168. N.55
10.05. However.81 22.859 11. * p<. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had
.89 20. * p<.33 78.81 161. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.60 72.S)
52 32 7 17 14
5.01. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.S.25: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122)
Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less > 3 years but < 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.52 172.09 15. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. Not significant N M SD F
3 16 23 91
38 48 27 20
Table 4.94 20.01.528**
In Study 3.63
1.S.68 20. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.381 10. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.81 175.80 22.37 9.50
24.437 (N.74 77.50 184.920 (N.97 8. In other words.26: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133)
Variable Driver Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Taxicab Driving Experience 5 years or less >5 years but < 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years Note: ** p<.65 73.27 14.56
2.Table 4. 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. However.55 73.26 10. Not significant N M SD F
77 31 10 4
174.31 78.62 10.58 188.64
driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.1 and H2. In Study 2.
ethnicity and age – were investigated. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.2. the lower was the total BIT score. though.6. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.2. 1C and 2. In Study 3. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score.1 was confirmed. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.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. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. only H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.27). For ethnicity. only H2. however.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. ANOVA results for age.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Again. 1B.
4. In this case. 1B. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses.been predicted by H2. In Studies 1A.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.
N.81. t(250) = 2.05).2 was confirmed.
t=2. In Study 1C. H3.9.01 F=8.1 and H3. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<.56. p<.S.05). p<.
Not Applicable F=3.01 F=1.01 F=1.66. however.05.05.4
Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control
were also investigated.99.
Therefore. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. 1C and Study 2. H3.01).01 F=. In Study 3. N. p<.562.12. it was found that female
automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. p<. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.53. p<. p<.
Note: Not significant
In Study 1A. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.01 F=9.01 F=2. In Study 1B. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.
.S. In Study 1A and Study 2. In Study 1B.98.68. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.2 were confirmed. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).62.00. N.05 F=11.44.01 F=19.3 was not supported.S. p<.74.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores
Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age
t=2.05 F=4. N.Table 4. N. In all studies. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). Externality-Chance (C).
p<.476. 298) = 6. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores.041. p<.05). 1C. p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.941. t(120) = 2.05 and p<.05. F(2. t(299) = 2. 1B.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. p<. 249) = 3.01. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.01). 119) = 5. p<.503.05 and F(2.490.
For Studies 1A.01). Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.
In Study 1A.05 and F(2.05. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. F(2.462.566.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.
In Study 2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.01 respectively. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 299) = 5. 298) = 3. p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. 299) = 3.05 respectively. p<.
. 298) = 3. In Study 1C.01 respectively). p<. F(2.05). F(2.370. E and P scores.05 respectively.
In Study 1B.527.
1 and H5.3. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. that age influences hopelessness. In Study 1.
However. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2 and H4. t(120) = 2.1. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. 1B or 1C.2. in Study 2.5
Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.3.2. H4. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.3 were supported. were supported.
Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. so H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. H5.079.2.05.3. H4. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.
. H5.01). H4. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.2.3. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1.3 were not supported. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. In addition.
Therefore.2 and H4. p<.3 was supported.1.Therefore.6.
2 and H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. H6. H6.7
Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported.01 and B = .342.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .1. respectively).
. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. that the three locus of control dimensions
influence hopelessness.354.1. H6.6.254.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .290.
4. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 respectively). p<.3.01.6. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness
(BHS) (B = -. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.
Therefore.4.01 and B = .371. p<. respectively). p<.01. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.01 and B = .
Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. p<. H6. that internality would influence hopelessness. In Study 1B.306.312. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.239.01 and (B = .254. In Study 2. In Study 1C. p<.186.28). p<. 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. respectively).341. were supported.2 and H6. p<.01.6
Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. p<. was not supported.3. p<. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.
01 Study 1B B=.01).01 B=. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<.157. p<.280.153.01 B=.151. p<.418. H7.280. p<. p<.349. 1C and 2.01 B=.415.151.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores
Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.S. B=.151.Table 126.96.36.1995.191.05 Study 1C B=.01 B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. p<.05 Study 2 B=.141. p<.153. freeway urgency (B = . p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .232. p<.4. externally-focused frustration (B = .254.317.01 B=. p<. p<.01).151. p<. N.287. p<. In Study 2.01 B=.01 B=.1. p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . freeway urgency (B =.317. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.
Therefore.01).191.278.01 B=. p<.415. p<. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .247. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.05).288.275. was supported in Studies 1A. the higher the hopelessness scores. H7.05 B=.141. p<.157. p<.05
In Study 1A.05).349.01).01 B=.3 and H7. In Study 1B. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 B=.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .287. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01). p<.01). that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<. the higher the hopelessness scores.254. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05) but not for freeway urgency.
. p<. p<. p<.01). p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.01 B=. p<.05). freeway urgency (B = .05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . In Study 1C.2. p<.099. H7.247. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.
178.2 and H8. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.077. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.1. provided support for hypothesis H8. that the higher the subscale score for I.01 B=-. B=. p<.01 B=.336.208. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.1.
Therefore. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. H8.297.
. p<. p<. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).29).1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.239.1 and H8. p<.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores
Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3
B=-.05 B=. H8. but not H8.S. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. N.3.01 B=. N. 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. p<.315.01 B=.S.229. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.168. where only H8. p<. p<.625.339.044.
Table 4. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.01 B=-.3.01 B=.388. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.6. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.01 B=-. p<.01 B=-. With regard to H8. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=.753.2. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. p<. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=. p<.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.2.4.01 B=. p<. With regard to H8. H8.006. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.S. p<.
1). F=4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. p<.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT
In Study 1C.01 and F=8. In Study 1C. p<.2).710. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. Further. p<. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.704.01 respectively (see Figure 4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. 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.909.
Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
150 low high
Figure 4.1). F=7.01 (see Figure 4. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control.272. p<.
. p<.581. =8.05. F=4.01 (see Figure 4.
R2=. multiple regression showed mixed results. 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. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00
64. 1B and 1C.00 MalaysianIndian
70.033. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.6.00 low high
Figure 4. First.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.327.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way
74.282.05. p<. B = .00
68. F=4. However.444.537) 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.00
62. in Study 2.9
Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic
For Studies 1A. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way
B = . p<.167.608.01.463.371).BIT Level
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Figure 4. R2=. F=18. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Kurtosis=-.459. p<.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=.4).070.
Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score
Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score
Externality (Chance) Figure 4. 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. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship
that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. p<. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.05 Study 1C t=2.
4.01 t=2.690. N. p<.S t=2.164. N.603. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. the H9.05 t=. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.210. 249) = 5. and H9.01 (see table 4. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.521. t(300) = 2. p<. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.30).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. However.298. F(2.2. N. In Study 1C.01 t=-. however.S.
Table 4.6. In Study 1B and Study 3. 1C and 3. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. t= .S t=1. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. p<.Therefore.05 t=4. were supported. p<.780.032. p<.480.603.01 t=2.1. In both studies. and t(250) = 2. N. p<.677.05 respectively. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese
. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.01
The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. p<. With motorcycle drivers.31).S t=2. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.01 t=4.690.467.820.187.
p<.05 Study 1C F=5.561.01). N. F=1.398.01 Study 3 F=1. In Study 1C.S.
Table 4. N.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. 299) = 4.629. F=2. p<.01.S.01). Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 1B. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.804.521. F(2.763. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. p<.155.182. F=. N. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F=4.432.564. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.01 F=2.S. N.01).422.
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 3.904.S. F=1. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.526.S. mixed results were found. F=2. F(2.
.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.S F=10. N. N.57. N. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.05. p<. N.021. F(2.01. p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.041. F=1.01).automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. p<. 299) = 5.01 F=. mean IND scores of Malay.432.
When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. In Study 3. N.041.S.S.567. N. 249) = 10. N. F=2.S.S. F=5.632. F=1. N.S.S. p<.S.077. F=1. F=2.
externally-focused frustration.3 and H11. freeway urgency. H10. only H11. H11. H10. were supported.6. H10.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.4. H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. In Studies 1B and 1C. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.1.Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. VER and IND subscale scores.3 and H11. freeway urgency.4. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. The higher the total aggression scores. H11. was supported.
. however. Therefore. However.32). the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. respectively. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. were all supported.2.29). that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.
4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11.
In Study 3. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. 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. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. 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.
438.01 and B = . Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.01. B = .545. and B = . respectively. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01. p<.483. N.01 B=. 1B. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score
. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. the higher were total BIT scores.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors
Study 1B B=.S. p<.01 respectively.380.05 B=.881. p<.461.121. p<.01 B=.01 and B = . p<. p<.01 B=. Similarly.263.01 Study 3 B=.216. p<. p<. p<.428.01. Study 1C and Study 3.385.387. However.204. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. B = . B=.S. p<.505. B = . respectively.05 (see Figure 4. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.370. p<.01 B=. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. but not in Study 3. F=3. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.520.01. N. and B = . p<.01 Study 1C B=.
Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<.183. p<.01 B=. p<. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.540. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.05 B=.01 B=.01 B=.565. p<.370. p<. Study 2 and Study 3.01.
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. B = . B = .324.229.263.
Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<.048. p<. but not in Study 3.235. 1C.01 B=.Table 4. Also.01 respectively.5). no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 B=. p<.491. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. B = .
00 Low High
Figure 4.01. for Study 1B. p<.645. R2=.
Mean Score on Freeway Urgency
52. p<.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.01.12.076. and B=-.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency
46. F=81. Kurtosis=-.01.316.6.961. The moderating effect of I was significant.100.05.297. B=-.00
42. B=-.01. R2=.131. Kurtosis=-.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.271.003.516. In other words.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.929. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. 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.172. F=100. p<.6.00 IndianMalaysian
48. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.362. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would
. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. R2=.
Kurtosis=. 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=. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. F=78.271. R2=. p<.088.507.704. B = .6).360.271.297. Kurtosis=-. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. and the moderating effects of C and P were
.897. p<.387. In Study 1B. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.369.431. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. respectively). Kurtosis=.01 respectively.069. p<. F=71.
Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score
Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score
Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=. R2=.109. p<.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.297. p<. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=. F=94.694.015.01 and B = .12.6.757. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. F=91.01.01. 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=-.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. Kurtosis=-.117. respectively).794.01.01.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
4. R2=.606. R2=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. p<.
7). R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 and B = . p<.1.
Therefore. and H12.significant. B = . p<.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
However. H12. and the moderation effect was not significant.302.3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.332. 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. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.2. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. H12.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores
Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores
Aggression Level Figure 4. that the internality. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others
. 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.01 respectively.
ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. t(249)=2. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.01.01 but not on about the derogation of others. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.01). p<.6.05). Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.1. t(250) = 3. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.
Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.05. 249) = 4. 248) = 3. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers. p<.01.05). Also. p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 249) = 5.279.263. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.343. p<.
. p<. Only H12. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores on the subscale measuring statements about physical aggression than did either Malay automobile drivers (p<.05. and about revenge F(2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.3. However. H122 and H12.737.314. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.
01. B = . that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. p<.01.01.3. p<. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.2. p<. H13. was supported. p<.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. freeway urgency.Therefore. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. were supported. was partially supported. B = .3188.8.131.52. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. B = . the higher the total HAT scores. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. This means that.
Therefore. p<. were supported.01 and B = . that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.307. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. p<.364.
4. H14. p<. externally-focused frustration.3.2 and H14. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. the higher were total BIT scores.
. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. B = .277. on total BIT score were also tested.01 and destination-activity orientation. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.1.
The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. B = . was not supported.01. p<.394. B = . H13. H14. (that thoughts about physical aggression.1 and H13.413.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.01. This means that. respectively.
565. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.809.013.4.-554.072).297. F=55.8).911.002. p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical
.297. F=57. 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.01.6.
Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score
Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score
Aggression Level Figure 4. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. aggressive drivers who frequently entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others would have higher total BIT scores compared to drivers who seldom entertained hostile automatic thoughts about others (see Figure 4. In other words. R2=. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01. R2=. Kurtosis=.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship
It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.085). B = .188. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.05. Kurtosis=. 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=. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.
was not supported.2.33). R2=. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.
. B = .1 and H15. was supported. Kurtosis=. 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.01.026. B = .207. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.297. H15.
Therefore. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.246. were supported.294. p<. However. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. H15.01. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.3.475.6.092). The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.
4.01. F=59.Aggression was significant.
2.S 1C P.S S S N.S P.S S S N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S
.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S N.2.S N.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S N.S S S S S N.S.S S S S P.2.S S N.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.1. S N.2.3.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S P.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S P.2.S P.S S S N.S S N.2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.S 3 P.S S S S S N.S S N.1.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S S S N.S S S N.1.1.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S N.1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.1: Total BIT score 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 H1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S
N.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S P.Table 4.S N.S N.S N.1.S S S S S S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
S= Not Supported.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S P. blank=Not Applicable N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S S S S S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.Table 4.S N.S N.S S N.S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S S S S S P.S S N.S S S N.S N.S N. P.S
.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.3.S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S N.S N.S
STUDY 1C N.S= Partially Supported.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S
P.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S N.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.3.S P.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S P.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S S S N.S 1B N.S 3 N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S P.S S S N. N.S 2 N.
2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S S S N. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S
STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.S= Not Supported.S
.S P.S N.S S 2 3 P. N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.S S S S S P.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S N.S S N.S S S N.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S= Partially Supported.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13. P.S S N.Table 4.
F4 χ2 49. C. F4 F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Of the six models tested. Hopelessness (BHS). F3. AQ I.060
Note: Internality (I). F3. F2. HAT I. HAT I.102 . P. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.93 . F2. C.4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).38 100. F4 F1. F4 F1. P. Externality Chance (C).00000 .g. freeway urgency.93 .96 RMSEA .00000 .f.58 35. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . C. BHS I.93 . hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. P. Aggression (AQ).80 104. P. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C)
Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F3 F1. F2. freeway urgency (F2). F4 F1.90 110.1
Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal
factors – Locus of Control. two were worthy of further examination. F3. Hopelessness. These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.
. 2002). F2. F3.05522 . AQ. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).02 d. C. C. F2. e. F2. BHS. C.7. Study 2: motorcycle driver. AQ. BHS.00000 .97 .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 8.97 63. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. P.
4. P I.087 . AQ. 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.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.96 . HAT Proximal Factors F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P).00111 .
Table 4.093 .00126 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.068 .34. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).045 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way.
23 respectively (see Figure 4.f.28 and .
An alternate model. .92) on accident involvement.22 respectively (see Figure 4. RMSEA=.5. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. . d.destination-activity orientation (F4).045. C6.32. For Model C6. . GFI=.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.10).
Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.96. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. For Model C5. RMSEA=.043.97.f. with path coefficients = -.51 and PGFI=. which are detailed in sect.96.97. . CFI=.26.
. To aid this discussion. but not as good as for C5.3. RMR=.91.14. and PGFI=.043. GFI=.060.97. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. with path coefficients = -.26. For Model C5.
Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. 5. .=24. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.=33. Externality (Powerful-Other).29 and . ECVI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).48. Externality (Chance).92) on accident involvement. values were: NFI=.10).42. d. AGFI=.42.94. .98). CFI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.
retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Externality (Chance).02. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. ECVI=.35. of the BIT score.13. RMR=. For Model C6.
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.79*
. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 GFI=.f =24 CFI=.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors)
.29* Aggression (AQ)
.13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.99 P-value = . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=35.57* Injury Occurrence
.32* Externality (Chance) .97 d.92*
Accident Involvement .26*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
. *p<.Distal Context
.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.045 RMR=.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.
13* Externality (Powerful Other)
.22* Hostile Automatic Thought
χ2=63.060 RMR=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.29* Aggression (AQ)
Accident Involvement .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.58* Injury Occurrence
.f =33 CFI=.02 GFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Distal Context
Internality -.96 d.31* Externality (Chance) .50*
.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.26*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 P-value = .77*
. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors)
13 respectively.00000 .66 131. HAT-P. HAT-D.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C)
Distal Factors PHY. F3. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). IND. Angry (ANG). F3 F1.078.66 153.081 .00000 .73 169.
. HAT-P. HAT-D.91.35). 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). HOS.00000 . F2. F3.94 169.91 . RMSEA=.10. F4 F1. ANG.41. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.078
Note: Physical aggression (PHY). HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. Hostility (HOS). F4 χ2 108. VER. HAT-D. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.91 . using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. VER. F2.66). HOS.084 . Indirect aggression (IND). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. d. HOS. HOS. IND. ANG. ANG. HOS.91 . VER. F2. ANG. freeway urgency (F2). GFI=.00000 GFI RMSEA . Verbal aggression (VER). F2. F3 F1.In addition. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.=61. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. CFI=. HAT-D.41 d. ANG. F3.93 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
As depicted in Figure 4. Aggression (AQ).65 and .00111 .80) on the accident involvement. F2.95). Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). IND. HAT-R PHY. HAT-R PHY. IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows:
Table 4. HAT-P. HAT-P. path coefficients = . 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .084 . F4 F1.f.92 . IND PHY. HAT-R PHY.f. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).080 .
.000 N=252 RMSEA=.69* Anger .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts)
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought
.68* Aggression (AQ)
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.f =61 CFI=.72* .91 d.41 GFI=.62*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context
Physical Aggression .83*
. *p<. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.61*
. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.63* Indirect Aggression .95 P-value = .60*
Physical Aggression .66* .29*
. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.2
Study 2 In Study 2. C. C. F2.12).65 and .66) on the accident involvement. P. F4
39. p-value GFI RMSEA
F1. P.36). freeway urgency (F2).f. RMSEA=. the participants were motorcycle drivers.94 .12. CFI=.86
23 28 23
.95 . F3 F1.=28.058 . Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.17631 . Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). BHS I. The contextual mediated
model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.12 d. C. Externality Chance (C).94.
. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. F3.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2)
Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. F2.047 . d. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. Externality Powerful-Other (P).7.062
Note: Internality (I).94
. F4 F1.80 respectively (see Figure 4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).33 33. F3. path coefficients = -. Hopelessness (BHS).047. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. P I.07580 . 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=29.98).f. GFI=. F2.
Crash Occurrence . *p<.99 P-value = .05
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.05
Externality (Powerful Other)
.047 RMR=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.65* Externality (Chance)
.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.70*
BIT4 .17631 N=122 RMSEA=.f =23 CFI=.57*
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
.95 d.Distal Context
BIT2 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.89*
C. I. but not Externality.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3)
Distal Factors I. C.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. Internality and AQ.20 and .f.3
Study 3 In Study 3. P Proximal Factors F1.061 Note: Internality (I).13). AQ F1.39 21 . the participants were taxi drivers.4.95 . have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F4 Crash Occurrence 31. p-value GFI RMSEA
Crash Occurrence.00524 . freeway urgency (F2).59 17 . The contextual mediated model
was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.061. 37. F3. CFI=. Externality Chance (ExC). AQ F1. F2.03084 . F4 Outcomes χ2 d. F4 50.079 Injury Occurrence I.=21. AQ F1. F2.93 . RMSEA=.f.95). C. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow:
Table 4. F2.7.027 I. d. F2. 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. F3. F3. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4)
Model included locus of control. Hopelessness (H).97 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.35265 .
.40) on the accident involvement.94 . P. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.95.37).39.20 respectively (see Figure 4. P.06743 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. path coefficients = -. GFI=.82 28 .22 23 .
13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3
BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.95 d.39 GFI=.13
. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation
Figure 4.95 P-value = .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.03
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
BIT4 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context
BIT2 .f =21 CFI=.20*
χ2=31.20* Externality (Chance)
. *p<. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63*
Externality (Powerful Other)
(4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).
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. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.4. and.38).
4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.
. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (3) the relationship between aggression 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. hopelessness did not
significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. consistent with path analysis results.
Table 4.8.39). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 2 and 3 are satisfied.8. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Therefore.1
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.8
Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and
accident involvement. 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.
1B and 1C.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator
4. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had
complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).41). in Studies 1A.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes
BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator
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. where the
.40). Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.4
BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.
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
. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship
between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. C or P and the two crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.
05.01. Study 2: t(421)= -4.
. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1A vs. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.442.9
Comparison of Automobile Drivers. p <. Study 1B vs. p <. p <. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.665. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(372)= 8. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. Study 1C vs.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued)
BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable
4. p <. p <.837.Table 4.993.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8.01.1
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers
4. Study 1A vs. Study 1B vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= 7.426.162. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.01. scores for distal variables (locus of control and
hopelessness). Study 1C vs. p <. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.01.9.663. 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.
With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 2: t(372)= -3.
and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. t(986)= 6.
. p <.01. Study 1A vs.704. t(986)= 7.977. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -4. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 2: t(372)= -7. t(253)= 8.
Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. p <.
4.261. t(986)= 3. t(986)= 30.747. p <. Study 1C vs.433. t(986)= 34. Study 1B vs.484. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <.200. and t(986)= 35. and to injury occurrence. p <. p <.687.837.01.01.01.861. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile
drivers on the I dimension.01. p <.926. respectively. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -8.211.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -6.01. Study 1B vs. p <.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.186. t(986)= 37.01. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -5.
Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01. Study 1A vs.01.402. Study 2: t(421)= -3. “freeway urgency”.01. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -7.3
Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control
dimension. p <. p <. p <.9.
4.01. t(986)= 5.2
Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.9. t(253) = 2. Study 1C vs. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C.614. p <. Also.01.01.801.775. Study 2: t(372)= -6.01.01. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity
.016. and t(253)= 37. p <.977.01and to injury occurrence. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. t(253)= 11.881.01.737.01.01. p <.01. Also.946.01.567. p <.01. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. t(253)= 39.982.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 31. p <. respectively. p <. “freeway urgency”. p <. t(253)= 8. p <. t(253)= 8. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.
They found gender. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).
In an earlier study. Often.. freeway urgency. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader.1
A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists.CHAPTER 5
5. While it has been generally assumed and
frequently stated that driver characteristics. 2. multi-factorial perspective. 1993.1). 1991). Elander et al. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to
. 2002b). 1995. including gender. Evans. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. al.4. 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.2. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity
orientation. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. upon examination. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. (1993).
A rich variety of individual factors exists which.total BIT score and component scores. the proximal variable. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. In the contextual mediated model. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors.
In the present research. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. Further. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety.
Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. hopelessness. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. except with taxicab drivers. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. if different.
. As a result. In other words. though. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. is that factors interact with each other. All too often. 1991).
But findings were more complex than that. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes.
… 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. 184.108.40.206). 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
Of course. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. Because of occupational demands. Malaysian-Indian automobile
.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.53.01years.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.hierarchy. SD=1.5. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.25 years. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. respectively). 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. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.16.63.
In the present study. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. and 36.
5. SD=1. SD=. respectively). They were also more experienced (266. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.6 months as licensed drivers. Inclán.7 months. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. there are other possible influences. SD=131. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43.2 years.1. as well. SD=11. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.3.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. For taxicab drivers.
For taxicab drivers. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. 20. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students.1 months. SD=22. By virtue of their age and occupation.
in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home.
With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. 2005). He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. influence peddling and status-related privileges. corrupt practices. were necessary to succeed.
Carment (1974) also found. along with selfpromotion skills. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. Devashayam. financial matters and social affiliations are made. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. perhaps due as argued earlier. when compared to Canadian students. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. In an environment where career choice. 2003. however.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). The finding that Indian-
. 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. spousal selection. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. rife with bureaucracy.
Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system.
the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. Nandy. 1999. 2002. by extension. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. an internal locus of control. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China.5 million in 1991 to 11.5% annually from 9.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. Sendut. and.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. 1999). (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55.
Again. but two possible influences stand out. as a group. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 1966. 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. 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. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999. Gomez. 1998. 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. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected
. including locus of control. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Indeed. where Cheung et al.7 in 1996. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Salih &Young. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.8 million in 1996. as a result.
2002). Nonetheless. Huff. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic
In the present research. 2001.women’s friendship patterns. Parkinson. Oetting & Salvatore.
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. 2000. Jenkins. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. bringing them closer together in outlook. there is a large body of evidence that
aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Lynch. Clayton. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. more recently.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. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miller & Rodgers. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 2002. 318). by the enraged driver. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Lawton & Nutter. Consistently.
5. 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. King & Parker. Miles & Johnson. Dukes. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in
Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. 2008. 2003.
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”).
While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Petrilli et al. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression.
Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Oetting et al. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least
. Underwood et al. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). Parker. Deffenbacher. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. on a journey by journey basis. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving.conditions. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity.
Underwood et al. (1996) and Deffenbacher. physical aggression. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. during such incidents. 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. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. 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. Further. With taxicab drivers. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Finland and the Netherlands.
perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. 2006).. Such responses. in the samples studied here. 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
. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). In essence.
Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. however. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. but not when they involved the derogation of others.. That is. the world and others).strongly. although still significantly. as well. 1997). 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. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control.
The effects of aggression on behaviour. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour.
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.
are determined by chance or fate. Certainly. 1990. 2004. 1994. like any other mental task. Hochschild. who found that the association between road-hostility and drivers’ speed choices and deviant behaviour (passing through a red light and overtaking from the inside) was larger among participants with low rather than with high internality scores. and particularly with negative emotion.
Similarly. Generally. but there may be more to it than that. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger.
. 1979.. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. Novaco. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i.. Finally. 1995. Language loaded with emotional content. or self-talk. aggressive automobile drivers who
believed that outcomes are determined by powerful others were also significantly more likely to report riskier driving patters than were aggressive drivers who did not believe that outcomes are determined by powerful others. Meichenbaum. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. 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. p. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Downe & Loke.e.e. “in ergonomics.
A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. 1977). in the form of hostile automatic
thoughts. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). true to operant learning principles. 1987. 401). (2003). has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie.
The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex.
Martin. 2002. Taylor & Fragopanagos. and attempting to exercise control over. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Lambie & Marcel. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Making sense of. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. MartinLoeches. Watson & Wan. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. p. Tomkins. 162). As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. hostile automatic thoughts. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan.5. 2004. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Stein. 1993).
5. aggressive emotionality. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. 2000.Robbins.5
Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)
Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Hinojosa. 1997). Trabasso & Liwag. 2000. 2005). 1996. Mercado & Tapia.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes
that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that
. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.
The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 1999. In fact.. Carretie.g. Performance
EQS and AMOS. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. p. a multivariate technique. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. 2004. Second. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. Finally. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. In addition. Structural equation modelling (SEM). the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. and perhaps most important. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. or independent variables. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. explain criterion.. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. Hair et al. who in 1970. involved in the analysis. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. Karl Jöreskog.
According to Williams. By estimating and removing measurement error. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. 2006).434). the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. Gavin and Hartman (2004). the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. 2006). or dependent. 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. When composing a model.. 2004. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. First. 2006). factors represented by multiple variables. including dependent and independent variables.
. 2000). 1998). or latent.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables.. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis.
Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. Therefore. etc)
.5. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. as suggested by Hair et al. the comparative fit index (CFI).e. Shook et al.
Hair et al.5. SRMR. In the present research. Sümer (2003) added that. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. (2006). model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. Williams et al.e. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool.
Shook. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. TLI. (2004) has been critical of most studies. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. when assessing the fits of measurement models. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following:
The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. GFI. and the root mean square residual were included. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. the goodness of fit index (GFI). 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.2
Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming
theory. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. CFI. Ketchen. (2004) noted that.
2006. Sambasivan & Ismail. 2006).
At the same time. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem.
5. be a process that balances utility with statistical
.. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. Structural equation modelling should. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. CFI. As a general rule..3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. Fit index values (e. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250.5. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. GFI. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.g.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Maruyama.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Hair et al. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2000). it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.In the present research. 2001. CFI and CFI) greater than . both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 1998. 2001. 1998). 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. we would argue. RMSEA lower than . Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit.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..
It is argued here that. Md-Sidin. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. significant p-values can be expected. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.
If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable
. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. and practical considerations (p. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. 88). as suggested by Byrne (2001). it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. destination-activity orientation.10) excluded the fourth factor. However.1. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. stating that. 1C5 and 1C6. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.
In the case at hand.7. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. Thus. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. two structural equation models.3). of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. “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. 4.9) included all four components of the BIT scale.
There is some support for this position in the literature. In some cases. 158).soundness. statistical. More importantly. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices.
97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.91 0.Table 5. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. AQ.97 1. Given that multivariate
analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.909 0.97 0. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.
Fit Statistics (Threshold values)
Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. C. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.48 30. C.034 97.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.96 1.02 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.045 0.99 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. Injury Occurrence 35.060 0. F2. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.94 0.499 0.97 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 0.02 0.96 0.39 Best
because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. F2. 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.02 0. P.42 11.
.043 129.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses)
Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.98 0. P. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. AQ.
(2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. farther along. 1995. 1990. it is 0. goodness-of-fit. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.
Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. they should be dropped.48. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.1). Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. 1996). Schwebel. but still acceptable. based on the notion that each variable included may. Parker. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. By selecting Model 1C5. Sambasivan (2008) stated that.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. However.42. Hair et al. while for Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical.
. Nahn & Shapiro. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. Storey. Manstead & Stradling. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 2006. in particular. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. 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. Reason. in this analysis. 2006). For practical reasons. et al..
In Study 1C.5. crash occurrence (r = -.
Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. for automobile drivers sampled. externally-focused frustration. on crash outcomes. 1991.29). indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . Sümer. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.1).18) and injury occurrence (r = -. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. and hostile automatic thoughts).5. The results suggested that the alternative model.45).35 and .14. 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. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of
. aggression. .35. externality-powerful other.34) and injury occurrence (r = .g. . Evans. externalitychance. 2001. 2003). externality-chance. freeway urgency.28 and . Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .21). the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Rothengatter.4
Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM
220.127.116.11. via BIT.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. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with five distal factors (internality.66). As observed from the investigation of structural paths. externality-powerful other.4. Distal factors (locus of control: internality. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. .28 respectively).
freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Results indicated that the first alternative model. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.66) directly predicted crash outcomes.25).41).4.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.
5.20) and injury occurrence (r = .24). crash occurrence (r = . internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. freeway urgency. 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. Aggression. freeway urgency. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. had a better fit than other alternative models.23) and injury occurrence (r = . and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. which sampled motorcyclists. on the other hand.
. crash occurrence (r = . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores.55). One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . externality-chance.65 and . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.5. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. externally-focused frustration. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration.
4. such as internality.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. with the sample of taxicab drivers. and destination-activity
orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.5. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. crash occurrence. as a result. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. to measure outcome. externality-powerful other.6. their crash occurrence. with four distal factors (internality. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.4. crash occurrence. had no significant effect on BIT scores.5
What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externality-chance.5. for the sample of taxicab drivers. had a better fit than alternative models. Distal
factors. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and.20 and . freeway urgency. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. via BIT. externally-focused frustration. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. Finally.
5.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.3). for crash outcomes. externality-chance. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.
. freeway urgency. externality-powerful other and aggression). externally-focused frustration. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. Results indicated that the third alternative model. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.5. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. aggression). in turn and indirectly. hopelessness. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. For motorcyclists. However.
2004).6. a total of five samples were taken. 2005. however. 2005). by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group.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. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability.6 5.
In the present research. To a large extent.
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. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp.
Sekaran (2003) points out. Huguenin. chosen at random from taxi stands. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. Further.
.5. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples
were. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 278279). 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. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.
2). 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. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. Study 1B: 100%.
.55).2% and Study 2: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. The most populous state.13 years (SD = 1. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. Since. with a mean age of 20.In Malaysia. Selangor.6%.6% (Study 1A: 99. as elsewhere.
With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state.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.
Table 5. in Malaysia.31. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Sabah. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.2%). individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Study 1C: 99. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.
260. For that reason.2 (5) 0.300.2 7. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.7 (14)
But.8 6.500 1.8 (6) 6.000 1.9 9.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.286 1.000 1.004.1 (7) 8.6 5.5 (8) 3. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.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) 7.150.9 (3) 2.9 (9) 7.4 provides
similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.576 2.2 (1) 3.000 215.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence. in this case.6 6.100.
. In both cases.000 Per cent of national population 26.200.396. Table 5.6 0.0 8.503. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.0 4.000 3.674 1. Not all states have the same number of drivers.5 (4) 4.500.818.387.2 3.4 5.880 3.7 (2) 2.000 2.188 1.000 2.6 2.6 (10) 7.807 733.0 12.2 (13) 11.887.
Table 5. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.2 11.2 (11) 12.3 (12) 11.Table 5. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young. 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.
13 6.24 0.251 324.144 12.026 10.46 8.98 0.19 4.91 2.588.4 4.785 393.029 273.104 6.Table 5.19 7.45 9.230 266.212 39.88 3.34 11.003 10.37 3.617 10.561 1.97 12.76 3.28 3.93 0.606 24.768 6.68 7.137 698.05 2.041 92.92 25.19 3.93 9.70 3.63
.600 135.55 7.725 70.490 525.90 5.36 8.43 2.34 3.96 3.16 2.635 1.84 11.20
12.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.85 1.22 17.496 187.774 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
12.198 156.428.064 9.88 2.093 5.70
12.467 25.170 13.27 14.89 3.735 165.35 4.50 29.920 181.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.163 10.24 2.75 4.
33 4.88 2.144 12.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.104 6.02 10.46 14.49 12.49 0.15 5.989 6.4 4.003 10.64 2.064 9.38 0.82 9.Table 5.74
.27 14.725 70.64 1.45 2.615.66 11.606 24.170 13.20
13.43 2.98 0.283 770.768 6.305 276.63 11.958
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
12.026 10.992 776.02 7.496
Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.617 10.288 444.59 12.029 273.37 3.14 7.35 4.46 5.75 5.48 1.212 39.995 233.656 821.03 4.88 3.112 347.22 3.679 90.10 9.856 310.221 36.133 705.467 25.28 3.561 1.727 161.722 255.76 3.92 25.79 13.38 4.59 1.93 7.93 9.36 8.
3 and 5.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .
Of course.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin
1 2 3
1 . at least.903** . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant
. was representative of a high risk driver population.824** .Table 5. 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.814**
1 . 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. 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. it can be argued that they were.4.796**
Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. it is possible to say that sampling. participants came from – or. At least on these dimensions.
Table 5.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.
Hatakka. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.
5. Keskinen. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. violations and accidents should be linked together.g. Rothengatter.
Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised
by af Wählberg (2002).. Elander et al. e. 296).characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. 1998. however. Exposure.6. accident distributions by age. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that.
The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. 1979). However. 1998. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. Again. 2001). attitudinal factors. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the
. unless the variation within the group is very small. None of these
variables can be substituted by group means. Much important data is available in official statistics. in studying driving behaviour. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. The problem. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. as in other psychological research. the data has to be disaggregated. demographic factors.
5. Visser and Denis (2004). 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. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. as in a study reported by Chalmé.
In the present research. 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. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. A further methodological problem
occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. though.g. blood pressure. muscle tension. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. Yet.. The assumption. therefore. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of
data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. the more information is lost through memory lapses. Particularly.
. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. 1996). the longer the time period for data collection. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that.3
Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. as well. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e.6. for instance.g. in studies of driving behaviour. combined interview and observational methods.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. In future studies. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods..
This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. The problem
with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of
It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 1999).6. 2002). and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1997. First. 1971).4
Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular
discussion. Second. as well.In the present research. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. individual standard. 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. and the hypothesis (H2.
Unfortunately. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported.
5. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 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. Mercer.
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. 181). 121). as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. because they have taken place recently. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. Specifically. “Some events are more available than others not
because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. Often. Wood & Boyd. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. But. 1974). 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. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. although this has not been firmly established. 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. this
strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. in other words. 1973.
In much the same way.frequency that were used in this research. Kahneman. p. eventful or recent. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. Slovic & Tversky. 1982). 2002). 1993. 2003). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. but not always. frequency or distribution in the world (p. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. 2004). 2003.. but because they are inherently easier to think about.
Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. in their studies of roadway aggression. on one hand. Similarly. (2003). during periods of low traffic volume. 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. asked participants to record the time of day. 1991).
Deffenbacher et al. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 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. road conditions. 2001) . traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances.
A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five
. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe.
Finally.In the Malaysian environment.. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. 2000). the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al.
Of course. Sansone. where driving histories generally include lengthy. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons.
Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to
arrive at a unified.
In addition. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Ranney. In the present research.1
Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. 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. 2005). that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches..g. 2002. 1985. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. during the study design process. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser.7 5. Summala.
Further research is required. 1994). 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. collected logbook data would have been largely
qualitative in nature. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge.
To summarise. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. using other procedures for measuring driving frequency – particularly in the form of estimated distance travelled and verified logbook recordings of trip distances and conditions – in order to validate the categorical. Good theories are simple. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate
. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. are testable and contain no contradictions. 1997).7. 2005). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. It was felt. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. 2004). selfreported measure used here. 2004). categorical perceptions of driving frequency. Michon. have high information content.studies undertaken.
94). 294). and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose.patterns of relationships. at times. on the other hand. check facts. or represent processes. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. 1997. The answer is probably not. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. stating that. The answer to this question is possibly yes. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Attempts to develop ‘traffic-
specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. often in graphical form (Grayson. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. p. in particular to structure data. 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”.
Hauer (1987). if they are modest in ambition. 32).
Throughout the development of traffic psychology. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the
3).entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. for instance. and if they are resultscentred (pp. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 95-96). 2. In
. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour.
The present research probably more represents the sort of model building favoured by Evans (1991) and Grayson (1997) than it does an attempt to test a broad theory such as those described earlier (see sect. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 304). The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. Yet. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. In the present research. hopelessness. 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.
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. In this case. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. who argued that. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p.
as defined by Grayson (1997). sensation seeking (Sümer. With several exceptions. extraversion. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. anxiety.
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).7. According to Ranney (1994). provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. depression. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. The general lack of success in identifying
predictors of safe driving. while still very much a model and not a theory. 2003). 2. it has been
conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. openness. not on everyday driving. While the present research
. Kerlinger (2000) and others..
Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. much current research. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. conscientiousness. for instance. 2005) were included as distal variables. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. crash-free driving.other studies. The contextual mediated framework. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect.3.
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. 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.
Within their proposed conceptual framework. On the other hand. Conversely. Such
individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner.did not test any of those theories specifically. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does.
Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general.
Following this reasoning. 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. As a result. or at least to react more slowly. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. 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. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.
. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. no matter how reliable a safety device.
can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels.
5. external locus of control and hostile attributions. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. Further
research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. could be screened out. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk.In the present research. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. al. Gidron & Davidson. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the
improvement of driving behaviour. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. task capability (Fuller. Christ et al. though..7.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions.
. Summala. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. 2002.3
Driver Selection. 1982). Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. 1996). Typically. 1997. 2004). 1996). 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. scarce resources for screening drivers. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.
Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. once identified. 2005. Specifically.
4. for the last fifty years.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. 1).4. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.7.5. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1957. From this has emerged the growing
.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes.
Slinn. or legal intervention.4
Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s”
5. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. World Health Organisation. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.7.7. teams of humans.4). These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. Unlike 100 years ago. 1961. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1957). recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).
At the same time. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. education. and machines are highly intricate (p. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. 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.
Suda & Ono. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. In the case of LKA. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. Stough. (Bishop. or the adaptive automation concept. Maggio & Jin. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. depending on environmental factors. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5.
there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. Murazami. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. 2005). 2001). 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). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems.
Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. These have been applied to in-car. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA).6). At the same time. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled.6). Sadano.
The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. 2003). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm.
. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. for instance.
Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Given that the present research found that driver frustration and attentional lapses in the form of destination-activity orientation were associated with risk of crash outcome. 1997). changes in traffic speed. Parsons. 2000).
The present research also found that freeway urgency. traffic
. in particular to pursue environmental. 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. 1998). Tassinary. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. Brown & Noy. 2004.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 1993. Safety benefits from traffic
management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. Richardson & Downe. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Fountaine and Knotts. Black. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in
“restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane.6). initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 1999. 2003. was associated crash outcomes. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Herzog. Ulrich. Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety.
p. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand.
Probably. Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Dietze. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 1996. 1992). engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. however. questions of alternative urban structure. and whether this information varies according to the situation. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task.
. 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. 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. journey purpose or other human factors. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. Proctor. 1991). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. 309).
Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. however. inexperienced drivers. 1996.
variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). reversible corrections through a motorlanes. departure warning. – 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. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point.1. “rumble strips” in expressways. etc. and likelihood of. Examples are the signals and ramp meters to too high for an upcoming use of “Bot’s dots” or monitor traffic on streets and curve. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. lane road conditions.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding
Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. keeping. infrastructure.1
lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane.
H 1. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow.Table 5. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors.
. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors.
H 1.. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. the systems intersection modification.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. 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”. the host vehicle. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. point. 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. including those in adjoining lanes.2
lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.
. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1
Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures.
H 1. to in-vehicle display terminals. are travelling. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. traffic lights) safe. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. than the safety standard. ACC systems provide modifications. generally pilot”. Radar.1.1. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.
The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. Such devices include chicanes. “Speed tables”. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. signs with calming or vehicles. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.1. pinchpoints and gateways or arches.
Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. environment and other frustrating stimuli.3
vertical displacement. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration.
H 1. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. 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. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers.
at least. notification of construction ahead. This information allows drivers to avoid or.
. safety messages. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.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. H 1.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.1. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.(continued)
electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. weather-related road conditions. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.
5. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. like community centres or places of worship. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic.
The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia.
Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. 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. 73). They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education.
. It suggests that. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.4. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance.7. 2001). The present research suggests that. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. teachers or the police. however. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. to some extent.
7. or an internal locus of control. 265). 1978. that “Of these three
approaches. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes.5. 2007. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic.4. 1030). road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. however. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. was studied in a
. p. p. N6).
Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. They also stated.
Second. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller.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. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. from the findings of the present research. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. or the
tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. The bias of false consensus. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. such as visibility of enforcement. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. legal measures change least often.
First. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed.
is allowed to occur in a Just World. Reason & Baxter.
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
. Ajzen. 2001. 1991. to consensual beliefs of powerful others.” 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). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 1992). Azjen & Fishbein. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. 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). after all. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 498).sample of drivers by Manstead. Stradling.
Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 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. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). By doing so. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. on the other.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Parker.
or not adhere. to traffic regulations. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. Similarly.drivers’ decisions to adhere.
. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. In the present research. Results have indicated that. as expected.
In doing so. 2005. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. Sümer et al. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 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. 2003. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. Sümer... Iverson & Rundmo. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. gender. 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. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). ethnicity.
The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential.g. when risky. age. it was concluded that driver experience. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 2002. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. hopelessness. locus of control.
the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. Montag & Comrey. 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. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. or external locus of control. it is argued here. like Brown and Noy (2004). measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. However. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1982). the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. Harrell. Some inter-ethnic differences in
. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule.. 1995. task capability (Fuller. 1987). consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors.. This is
Of the variables studied. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. In the present research. Of particular interest was the fact that the effects of aggression on TABP were moderated by cognitive self-talk containing two content types: physical aggression and revenge. as well as statistical grounds. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. In most cases. 1973). The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and.g.
It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. Further. 1986. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. Hoyt. 2003). the best fit usually implies the best model. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. and accident risk (e. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 1974).In the current literature. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala.
One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). Several authors (e. 2005.
In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. as well. they
. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. Huguenin. Rothengatter. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Groeger & Rothengatter. 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. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome.. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography.aggression were observed. 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. For example. cultural anthropology. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. in combination. It is argued that this is a
In interpreting these effects. However. road engineering and ergonomics. 1998.g.
significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. management. educational and enforcement spheres. 313). regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged.
. findings with regard to four
components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. injuries and death. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. 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. In the present research. Indeed. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. Through a multi-disciplinary approach.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). Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived.
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.
T.H. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists.. R. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). K.REFERENCES
 Abdel-Aty. (1979). (2003). (1999).
af Wählberg. P. A. Journal of Safety Research. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.E. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. L. (2003).A.
Ahmad Hariza. 10(2). Drinking and driving: intention. 12. T. (2002). Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Third edition.. 473-486. 1867-1874. N.. A. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Adolphs. Puzzles & Irritations. R. P. H. 38(5). and Kulanthayan.. Psychological Testing and Assessment.
. 581-587. Petaling Jaya. A.
af Wählberg.. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Bahrain. 25.H. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. (2003). Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors.
Abdul Rahman. and Law.S.E. 289-296.R. Accident Analysis and Prevention.B. MY: Pearson. and Anurag. Mohd Zulkifli.
Åberg. Neural systems for recognizing emotion.
Abdul Kareem. M. 35. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. 31-39. Radin Umar. H. and Pederson. 169-177. Crash data analysis: collective vs. M. (2005). S. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. individual crash level approach. 5. (2002). (2007). Mohd Nasir. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (1993). L. Musa.
Ajzen.J. London: John Wiley & Sons. Day. 52. 7. and Kecklund (2001). S.
Armitage. W. J. 33(3). 23. (1985).J.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Current Psychology: Developmental.
Archer. 10.C. 47. and Kerrich. and Beckmann..
Arbous. J. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.
Amin. The theory of planned behaviour. (2001). E.) European Review of Social Psychology. and Haigh.
Arthur. (Eds. Nature and operation of attitudes. (2004). Annual Review of Psychology. M. T. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Age. 22(3). Biometrics. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. (1987).
Ajzen. (1997). 187-195.A. In Stroebe. Learning.T. A. M. (2005). Bell.
Ajzen. (2003). Personality. and Hewston. (2001)..
Ajzen. S. and Fishbein. 291-307. B. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. W. and Tubré. Social. J. Tubré. 179-211. Edwards. I.. 404-415. Aggressive Behavior. Women’s Studies International Forum. I. gender and early morning accidents. (Eds. I.G.H. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. A. 340-342. 27-58.105-110. In Kuhl. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. T. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. M. 10(6). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. J.D. Human Factors. J. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 623-633. Journal of Sleep Research. (1952). (1991).
Armstrong. C. 50(2). and Christian. I. 303-313.
2007 from http://www. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.V.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour.
Baron.A. NL: Styx.S. 89-105. and Tortosa. D. Human Performance. Boston: Kluwer. F. When hope becomes hopelessness. and Biehl. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1991). (2001). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and Kenny. J. M. and Carson..
Aschenbrenner.M. 34. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. Groningen. (2005.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. (Eds.M.-E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. (1986). Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems.
Asian Development Bank (2005).bakrimusa. Barrett. Wilde. (2002). 51(6). 34. F.
Bakri Musa. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.
Barjonet.C. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia).F. (2002). Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers.A. S.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.
Barjonet.M. Manila: Philippines. 2(4).L. R. and Alexander. 4(2). and Dischinger.. P-E. strategic and statistical considerations. M.
Austin. (1997). Retrieved April 4. (1998). 21-30).. (Ed. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. In Rothengatter. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.-E. P. R. K. October 18). 231-234. and Tortosa.
Aylott. (Eds. In Barjonet. In Trimpop. T. P. B. 1173-1182. (1994). GJ. and Carbonell Vaya E. W. G. 14-29).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 279-284.
T.. Cognitive models of depression. H. New York: Cambridge University Press. 29(1).C. and Simons-Morton (2002).T. Cognitive therapy. 157-179). Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. E. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. and Berg. 19. New York: Meridian. Hostility and Violence. Journal of the American Medical Association. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.
Beck. J. 218-229). (1993). In Zeig. (1987b). New York: Teachers College Press. The level of and relation between hope.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. (1993). (2005). Palliative Medicine.
Becker.M. 5-37. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders.E. G.S.T. A.G. A. and Steer. A. (pp. R. (1999). and Bonnett. (1976). 88. D. D. J.G. and Mills. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Kovacs.K. 149-178). A. and Trexler.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp..T. (Ed. L.F. Psychological Bulletin. 1146-1149. (1996). M. Theory: the necessary evil.
Beck. Weissman.. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.
Beck. 234(11). R. and Weissman. E.
Bentler. In (Flinders. 1(1). Health Education and Behavior. (1975). (1987a). A. In Rubin. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.
. A.F. 73-84. and Loftus.J.T. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation.C. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.. (Ed. Hartos. A.A. A. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care.T. (1974).H. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. 588-606. Lester.
Beck. P. 234-240. K. A. A.T.
751-777. F.S. 45(1). Applied Ergonomics.. Psychology and road safety. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Applying Psychology in Organizations. R. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. S. (2006.. (2006). 15(1). New York: McGraw Hill. McKee. 95-104. H.C. (1995). and Geller.
. 39-55. J. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 313-322. and Valentine.D. 391-399. Benjamin.
Ben-Zur. (1981). M.. J. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Graziano. 44-51.
Bina.php?id=185148. R. A. E. 2007 from http://www. 472-481
Bettencourt. and Bonino. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Accident analysis and Prevention.
Bridger. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review.my/bernama/v3/printable. 37-40. 34(1). 53. (1984).
Boff. 38(3).E. F. (2002). March 12). Malaysian National News Agency. Managing the high costs of road deaths.J.
Bernama. 132(5). Retrieved March 30. T.
Blasco. Stress and Coping. Anxiety. Williams. Journal of Personality Assessment. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.B. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (1994).bernama. and Haney. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity.
Blacker. M.. 37.
Blumenthal. Psychological Bulletin. T. and Shimmin.com.A.S. (2001). D. B. R. New York: Routledge. Talley. S. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder.. 43. A. (2006). Introduction to Ergonomics.
) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (Eds. 20-23.
.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. I. 105-124.
Brown. 24.. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. 14. R. 18(2). (2002).C. R. 4(4). (Eds. E. I. N. (2005). In Rothengatter. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. R. and Ghiselli.D. 24(1). 445-455. In Rothengatter. 32(1). 318-330. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. W. International Journal of Educational Development. Ergonomics. (2000).D. 345-352. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. 641-649.E.
Brodsky. C. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Multivariate Behavioral Research. M. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions.
Bunnell. (2004). I.
Brown. W.G. Goldzweig. (1989). and Warren. T. (1982). 219-241.W.M. Haliburton. Journal of Applied Psychology. 267-278. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Brindle. observational data and driver records.
Burns.E. G. D. R. Personality and Individual Differences. and Noy.P.. T. Political Geography.C. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.S. 37(4). 27(3). Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. C. (1992).
Briggs. T. Schlundt. (1995). 21. and Huguenin. E..
Brown.J.D. and Wilde. P. 9-19).
Browne. (1948). and Carbonell Vaya. G.C.S. and Cudeck. (2007).
Brown. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. Levine.K. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. (1997).W.
Carretie.W. In Bohrnstedt. O..J. Accident Analysis and Prevention.W. (2001). 290-299. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates.L.D. A. and Tapia. Multiple perspectives. Mercado.F. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. E. J. J.. F. (1957). B. M. J.
Cackowski. (Eds. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. D. Oxford: Elsevier Science...
. Ergonomics. R. 22. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1981). PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. 15981613. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Parada. 343-349. W. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. M. B. and Durkee. and Cortes. 47(15). T. M. Human Factors for Highway Engineers.A. (1998). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. A. International Journal of Psychology. (2002). In Fuller. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.
Carment. J. (1999).) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. and Borgatta. L. E. 45-50. Gonzalez. 21. and Kline. 9. (2003). Journal of Consulting Psychology. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. (2004). (Eds).K. L.G.. 63-65. Martin-Loeches.
Byrne. and Nasar.
Byrd. and McIver.H. Applications and Programming.M.H.. (2000). 35(6). T. Applications and Programming. (1974). J. 736-751. & Santos. Environment and Behaviour. E.L. and Warren. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts.
Buss.P. (2004).. G. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. Cohn. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Human Brain Mapping. Hinojosa. A.
Personality and Individual Difference. Campo Grande.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
Chaloupka-Risser (2005). November 12). W.
Carver. N6. Matto Grosso do Sul. J. 10(2). (2007. 41. November). (Eds.F. 2007 from http:www. Y. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. What are we allowed to ask. Kuala Lumpur. In Rothengatter. S. S. 557-562.-L. 109-122. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour.-H.
Chang. Driving: through the eyes of teens. R. Sunway Campus. New York: Dell. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. 21(4). (1996).H. Brazil.pdf
. and Nash. F.org/workshops/05CampoGrande
Chan. Retrieved March 31. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak.G. R.M.D.W.
Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Dictionary of Psychology. (2007). R. Visser.ictct. Malaysia. and Lim. March 20-22.ghipr..com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. 61-71). Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. M. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. T. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. R. Taiwan. and Denis.-H.
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). 467-477. The Star. (2004).0.
Cheung. P. D. (1985). Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.
Chaplin. and Yeh.
Cheah. J. Monash University. H.P.. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Howard. Retrieved October 15. (2000). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Cheung. 2008 from http://www. T. and Huguenin..
Driver selection and improvement in Austria.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. Personality and Individual Differences. MacGregor. N. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. Towner. Demakakos. W. and Stiles. Bradshaw.’ Injury Prevention. French.
Christ. P.makeroadssafe. J. M. Bartle.. Retrieved December 7. 255-274). 193-200. 39.T. M. (1996).C.K. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. D. June). Panosch.S. Helmets. P. 196-203. Bakou. S. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong.
Chipman. )2007). 13(2). N.E. Accident Analysis & Prevention. and Costello. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. (2000). C.
Christie. E. (1992).
Chmiel. and Huguenin.G. S. 974-981. T.
. G. 125-129. R. B..
Chioqueta. P.. and Lee-Gosselin.. (2005). C.. 1283-1289. Smiley..P. (2007). and Darviri. and Bukasa. M. V. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes.pdf
Conrad.. 38(6). 2007 from http://www.. A. and Chan. (2002). 377-390). (2004). Amsterdam: Elsevier. (1999).
Clarke. (Eds.D. Personality traits and the development of depression. Journal of Safety Research. E. hopelessness and suicide ideation. In Chmiel. 28(2). Safety at work. N. Cancer Nursing.. Ward.
Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Kasniyah. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Chung. A. R. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. H. Lamsudin. 679-684.L. 22(3). T. Koumaki. 33. Time vs. C. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Truman. (Ed. Tzamalouka.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.D.M. Cairns. Y. R. N.. C. 24(2)..
Chliaoutaks. 431-443.... In Rothengatter..) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. and Ward.
Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. and Patel. 152-171.J. Legal and Criminological Psychology.my/permalink. (2006. R. G. The Star. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A. D. 5(1). Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Costa.A.S. and van Koppen. 2007 from http://blog.
Crombag. Accident proneness. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. and Froggatt.R. P. American Psychologist.. P. and Durso. W.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.
de Waard. 161-175). Amsterdam: Elsevier.M. (1961).
Crittendon. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. 16(5). P. (2002). The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. H.F.
Cooke. (Eds. 21-50. Retrieved April 5.
Cowardly Malaysian drivers.
Davin Arul (2005. 98-117. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. Journal of Personality Assessment. Applied Cognitive Psychology. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. 10. p.J. (2005).L. L. In Rothengatter.
Cozan. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. N. F. 64. R. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. and Santos. and Huguenin. Mental workload. 10. October 18).D. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). In Fuller. Wagenaar.T. (1996). R. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing.com. February 8). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 45-62.M.thestar.
Davies.W. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes.asp?id-7003. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. (1991). 20(5). and McRae. R. 263. W. D. K.
Cresswell. J. (1962). N48
de Raedt. T. 95-104.
Dewar. T. Lynch. and Swaim.S. and Olson. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. (2004). Oetting. (2005). K.R. 111-142).
. (1997). Age differences – drivers old and young. The expression of anger and its consequences. P.S. 14(12). J. 1-20.L.B. S.
Deffenbacher.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Filetti. 34.F. D. (Eds.L. R. and Carbonell Vaya. (Eds. J. Personality and Individual Differences. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.D. Oetting.R. and Oetting. 47.R.L. E. (1998). J.A. Cognitive Therapy and Research. and Olson. R. T.
Delhomme.S. T. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. Oetting.R. T. E. E.E. C. Lynch.C.. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. 26(1). Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. 28. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. 373-393. R. M. (2003). In Rothengatter. In Dewar. 41. P. 5-17. Huff. (2000). J.
Dharmaratne. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Tucson. Women’s Studies International Forum.
Deffenbacher. (1999). R. E.E... N. and Brookhuis..L. Tucson.T. In Dewar. (2002a).S.
de Waard. On the measurement of driver mental workload.N.. Richards. Petrilli.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. R. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and Morris. Lynch. 161-171). 27(4). (2003).D.L. R. Ergonomics. 123132. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. (2002b). J.L. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 575-590. 333-356.
Deffenbacher. L. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 383-402. R. and Salvatore.
Dien.L. Journal of Counseling Psychology. (1996).W. P.. S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. E.
Dewar. E. Behaviour Research and Therapy. R. R.. and Ameratunga. Lynch. 50(2).E.. and Meyer. 209-233). 729-730. Individual differences.
Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. 1146-1158. Science & Technology. M. W. and McFadden. C.P. E. 263282.. D.. (Eds. 53. R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.L. Lim. M. Amsterdam: Pergamon. negative emotional and risky driving.
Dobson. Ball. Dietze. Brown. ‘Fatalism’..R. (2001). R.a.. A. A.. L.
Dixey. and Che Doi. 197208. M. and Ballard. 278-285). T.. H. Sungai Petani. (2003). M. December). 223-231).. In Khalid.
Dula. The safety potential of the new
driver assistance system (CSA). C. L. J. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation. (1999). T.G. Asian Institute of Medicine.A.S. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. In Dorn. Bahar. Knowledge transfer. (1997). locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Jenkins. (2007. and Carbonell Vaya. (Eds.
Draskóczy.M. Kedah. J. Women drivers’ behaviour. Powers. S. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 31. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.
Dukes.G. Mohd Yusuff. 525-535.
. and Mayser. Social Science Journal 38. N. Nigeria.
Downe. Clayton. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups.L. 323-331. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.L. S.D.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp.T. (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. (1987). S. and Coie. (2003).) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.E. (1999).A. T. November). 85-92). Health Education Research. and Loke.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2004. Malaysia.. Lippold. C.Y. and Rodgers. Miller. A. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. J. K.. Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Downe. M. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. 14(2). In Rothengatter. 33.E.
Ménard-Buteau. (Ed. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.ictct. Brno. (2001). 201-22. N.M. (2002).
Engel. G. 4(3). Kim. C. 69. 771-782. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis.. 279-294. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. Leadership and Organizational Development. In Lefcourt.
. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Dyal.A. In Underwood. Retrieved December 25.
Elvik. G. (2005). Boyer. Lalovic. Lesage. Causal ordering of stress. 838-844.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. G. (1993). A.
Ellis. C. (1971).B. 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. (1968). (1962).
Dunbar. West.. (2005). H..org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. 209-306). G.D. Annals of Internal Medicine.
Elangovan. and Turecki. 22(4).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. March 20-22. 17-26). Journal of Transport Geography.L. Psychological Bulletin.(Ed.. Annals of Internal Medicine. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. J. G.. (1996). Czech Republic. J.pdf
Engel. New York: Academic. 50(13). 113. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. Chawky. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. R. J. A.. satisfaction and commitment.
Edwards. R. and French D.R. 159165. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 293-300. R.. A. A. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings.. 2007 from www..L. 74. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. A. (1984). New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.
23(5). and Chambers. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. American Journal of Public Health.A. (1984). E. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. (1996). L. and Chambers.
Farik Zolkepli (2007. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Klesges.
Evans. L. E. London: Medical Research Council. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.000 and RM5. (1991).. N22. L. 55). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.S.6bil losses yearly. S.M. L. 6(1). 421-435. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.A.J. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. M. December 10). Herth. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety.
Ey. (1995). (1926).. p. E.
Evans. C. London: Medical Research Council. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. London: Medical Research Council.G.G. (1939). Risk Analysis. (1976). E. Hadley.
Evans. New York: McGraw Hill. 16. G.M. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. 86(6). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. E. (1986). J. Patterson. and Popovich. B. 81-94.
Farmer. E. S. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. Barnard.. 19-36. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. and Alpert..
Ferguson. Traffic Safety and the Driver. (2000).G.. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. 38). and Chambers. 84). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury.
Evans.M. W. 784-786. The Star. K. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (1929).
S. S. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 51(1). (2002). Women and traffic accidents. and Richardson. Accident analysis and Prevention. August).W. 77-97). S. 63-77. Teoh. 289-298.. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. Human factors and driving. 12(4). (1990). 37. B. consequences and considerations. Cross Cultural Management.W. (2004). New York: Knopf. 38(5). Tix. 47-55. The task-capability interface model of the driving process.
Forward. (2005). 115-134. Malays and Indians compared.
Fuller.T. R. (1975). Journal of Counseling Psychology. (2007).
Frazier.18(4). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Fuller.. In Fuller.. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology.. P. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. S. R.R. R. R. Linderholm. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Friedman. 66. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. (1974).
.A. K. San Francisco. E. and Seiden. H. P.
Fuller. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Finn. and Ajzen. and Järmark.
Firestone. 461-472. Intention and Behavior. (2005). Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.P.A. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. M.
Fontaine. R. and Santos. R. R. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. causes. (2000).A.H. (2006).
Forward. 9. I. and Barron. Recherche Transports Sécurité. J. 412-426. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. I. and McCartt. Journal of Safety Research 38. Journal of American College Health.E. and Rosenman. 137-145. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. A. 207-213. A. (1986). Belief. Attitude. and Bragg. (1998. R.
(1999). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. Aggressive Driver. E.
Fuller. 33(6).T. R.S..) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 58(1).. Y. G.. 13-21.
Gidron. 42(9). Mutu.
Ghazali. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view. (2006). European Journal of Public Health. Journal of Applied Psychology. and Syna Desevilya.W. (1949). Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. (2006). 487-491. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Gal. (Eds. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. E. E. 1233-1248.A..E. 16(5). Ergonomics. 167-202).S. and Carbonell Vaya.
Gidron. 540-546. E. (1999). C. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. T. 12(4). Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. R.. T. 203-220.D.
Graham. 109-128. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. D. (2003). D. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. Behavior Paterns.. Stress and Coronary Disease. H. McHugh. C. In Rothengatter. and Davidson. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. 6.E. N. R. A.
Ghiselli. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. (Eds. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers.B. J.
. Y. and Brown.
Garg. 93-96). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. (2006). and Gomez. 109-116. Rajasingham-Senanayake. and Pender. E. (1997). and Hyder. S.C. Petaling Jaya. Nandy.B. Journal of Food Products Marketing. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. (1996). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. A.A. MY: Sage.
Galovski. (1977). and Mahbob. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour.
Glass. L. (2008). 19.
Grayson. N. Malta. A. Hillsdale.T.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. K. and Blanchard.
 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.
Barrett. New York: E. C. D. (2005).407-423. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. 659-662.. G. (1975).. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers.
Lerner. Mahwah. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Jehle. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. A. 303-304. D. (2001). H. Applied Ergonomics. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. 253-269). The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.L. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). R.P. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. and Nutter.
Leech.J. H. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. In Lefcourt. 177-196. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2002).M. 2nd Edition. IV. A. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. H. Journal of Personality Assessment.M.B. 38.K.
. 479-490. H.A. 377-383.
Lawton. Dutton.M. H. E. New York: Academic. R. (1973).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. 41. and Stiller. H.. (1983).G. 397-401. (Ed. Cancer as a turning point. Billittier.C. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.. Janssen. N. 97.
Levenson. 37. and Morgan. G. Moscati.. (1974).V.
Levenson.M. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Malay dominance and opposition politics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. pp.M. Journal of Social Psychology.
Lee. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Lefcourt. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. H. K. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. (1976). 93.
Lenior. 3. British journal of Psychology. (1989). L. Conner.
P. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology.. I.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.limkitsiang. powerful others and chance.S. 8-9
Liverant.. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk.
Levenson. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. Neighbors. 11. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Huang. D. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. and Yen. (1960).htm. March 26). 2007 from http://thestar.. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 213-222.P. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. 2007 from http://www. 39(3). (Ed. (1999. 15-63). In Lefcourt. C. (1981).my/news/story. (2007. (Ed. L. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents.
Loo. 7. F. New York: Academic. H-D. 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. M-R. Retrieved May 14. H.
Lonczak. (1979). 536-545. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. In Rothe.. (1980). D.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. K. J. The Star Online. H. 10. 59-67. E. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people.M. February 2). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. (1997). and Scodel. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Levy.com. (2004). Wu.
Lindsey. A. Psychological Reports. 125-127.M. S.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S. 36. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. L-L. Hwang. Differentiating among internality.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. and Donovan. Retrieved April 5.. H-F. (2007).
Balla. Monash University Accident Research Centre. and McDonald. 593-597. (1995). 391-411.A. age..R. 185-217. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Journal of Rehabilitation. C. I. Vissers.R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. A. R. W. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 62-67. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. M. and Hershberger. and Wan.L. 18(4).L. A. Malaysia. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Journal of Personality.L. May). (1994. Report No.
. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. M. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.
Marsh. 299313. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. In Dorn. 31. H.. C. Campbell. and Jessurun. Victoria NSW. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. (1986). Psychological Bulletin. Annual mileage.A. (1997). and level of education. J. R.
Marcoulides.28. (1989). (1994). (Ed.W. behavior and cognition.F. 55(2). P. Watson.L. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 68(5). (1998).
Matthews. 73-87. 129. J. and Balla. and Mooran.M. G. (1999). of affect. 27(1). 233-252). 869-897.
Marsh.W.F.M.K. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. (2000).
Lourens.A. Quality & Quantity. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. G.P. Australia.
Martin. S.. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. (1988).
Maruyama..L. J. H.
Maakip. R. K.. L. D. and Williams. (2003).
(1977).. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. The University of Reading. (1989).P. Sambasivan. 37(6).
McKenna. Psychological Medicine. 34(47).
Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. 23. F.W. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support.
McKenna. and Neilly.
McConnell. (1986). F. Fort Worth TX: Holt. Retrieved April 5. F. M. A. (1983). 45-52. (2009)..D. New York: Guilford...
. (1990). I.
McKenna. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 71-77. 649-663.. Perspectives Psychiatriques.P. 2007 from http://www. Ergonomics. Malaysia Today. Risk Analysis. (1998). Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. 769-778. J. Rinehar and Winston. and Brown. 9. D. D.
Md-Sidin. (1989). Beresford. P. I.E. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Unconscious suicides. and Burkes. Understanding Human Behavior. Hampshire UK.
Meichenbaum..E. G. Duncan. New York: Plenum. [ in press]. S. J. Personality in Adulthood. (2007). Waylen. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. M.V. Ismail.
McRae. G. 29. R. L. November 6). 173-181. and Costa. (2005. Accident Analysis and Prevention. S.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day.malaysia-today.R. Journal of Managerial Psychology.P. (1974). E.
(154). J. and Schwing. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know.
. Hasselberg. P.
Michon. A. 341-353. 195-211. and Niemi. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. and Johnson. G. Retrieved May 23.org.M. Safety Science. 2007.my/en/street_smart_statistik.
Mizel. Turku.panducermat. (1983. Washington DC. (1997).. l. and Shapiro. and Keskinen. 38(6). 21(4). E.php.C. Simulator performance. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. E.
Mikkonen. Retrieved December 15.
Michon. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. (2006).. 75-85.A. (2006). from http://www.aaafoundation.A.org/pdf/agdr3study. K. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.J. In Aggressive driving: three studies. Aggressive driving. A. (Eds. Finland. New York: Plenum. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.
Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). and Laflamme. (Eds. 2006 from http://www.E. L. H. 44(2). M. 33(3). Journal of Psychosomatic Research. what should we do? In Evans. Accident Analysis and Prevention. May).L. V.pdf
Moller. (1985).) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. J. J. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. C.. Bulmas. microsleep episodes.
Miles. 335-342. 147-161.. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. Time intervals between accidents. 401406. 6(2).
Monárrez-Espino. R. (1949). D. Statistics.L. In Helkama. (2003). L. L. (1989).L. M. Kayumov.
Mintz. J. and Blum. 61(3). Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Nhan.
A. 72. (2007). and Astur. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. A.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.B. W. W. Rajasingham-Senanayake. P. S. 320-388). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (1987). and Comrey. L.
Most. In O’Donoghue . Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Religioin 37. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature.
Morris. Nandy. (Eds. 42. (1976). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. 6. (1974). Journal of Applied Psychology. and Maniam. Fifth Edition. (2007). J. Accident proneness and road accidents. A. and Summala H.L. H. (1999).T. 167-202). 32-37. K..S.
Montag. E. (Eds.
Novaco. and Summala. 38(1).
Näätänen. 339-343. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. and Gomez. Transcultural Psychiatry. T. Journal of Affective Disorders. Amsterdam: North Holland. MY: Sage. 243-261.L. R.
Moore.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. A. R. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Neuman.. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. D. R. 8. Boston: Pearson.
Näätänen. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (2003). 15(2). Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. I. 164-174. A. R. (1956). 125-132. 137-144. 51-63. (1994). Visual Cognition.
Niméus.L. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. and Krasner. Petaling Jaya.
and Olson. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.38.W. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. Injury Prevention.
Ochando. Human factors in modern traffic systems.
Ohberg. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Straits Times. Pentilla. 171. 2(5)..
Our roads are filled with selfish drivers.L (2002). A. Driver perception-response time. J.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp.
O’Connell. B. E. P. P. and Williams.
. J.F (2001). R. (Ed. 92-93. Garner. 4. 468-472. R. 34. (1997). says operator.B. [Letter to the Editor] The Star.
Novaco. F. (2007. W. M. Aldershot.R. In Dewar. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. p. In Fuller. (Eds. December 9).W. R. (2002).
Olson.S. 1016-1024. and Lonnqvist. Tropical Medicine and International Health. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 654-656. Aggression on roadways. R. (1997). p.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.L. J. Oxford UK: North Holland.A. Temes. R.
N-S highway still one of the safest roads. P. 40(10).
Novaco. February 8). 253-326). M.. UK: Ashgate. Tucson. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. I. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Odero. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. and Santos. Zwi (1997). (1996.
Noy. and Z. N51. (2000).
O’Neill. In Baenninger. A. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’.. Driver suicides. K. British Journal of Psychiatry. 43-76). (1996). 4(2). (2001). 201-215). Spanish Journal of Psychology. 237-252. Ergonomics. 445-460. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. (1998). and Hermida.
D. C. 38(3). The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. D.
Parker. T. Anger on and off the road. 456-461. (2008). Tassinary. Driving errors.E. 533-545. D. S. 18. Manstead. Journal of Environmental Psychology..
Özkan.R.G. J. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics.
Parsons. Reason. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. and Grossman-Alexander.. Accident Analysis & Prevention. T. and Saleh. 40. 479-486.M.A. 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. 42. 3-13. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). Ergonomics. R. and Kaistinen. B. H. R.
Parsons. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 92. (2002). N. A.
Parkinson. and Lajunen (2005). (1998). Helsinki. O. C. 125-134). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 229-235.G.. (Eds. 1036-1048. Lajunen.W.
Parker. Hebl. M. 507-526. 2007 from www.
Papacostas. J. (2004).R and Stradling. and Huguenin. T. Personality and Individual Difference. (1974).. J.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. Ulrich. M.. L. 34. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. and Schneider. T. (2001).. Finland. (1988). (1995).
. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. 37(1). Traffic locus of control.S. (pp. 38(5). driving violations and accident involvement.T.S.. and Synodinos. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. British Journal of Psychology. (2005).
Parker. Lajunen. Applied Psychology: An International Review. D. R. 113-140.ictct. and Summala. T.pdf -
Pai. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies.
Özkan.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Retrieved December 20.S. W.
. Retrieved March 31. A. 68-79.. A. Perceptual and Motor Skills. (1976).J. J.
Perry. 201-204. Bioulac. B. British Medical Journal. and Mathers (Eds.
Peltzer. U. M. A. D. Sleet. 91. Perceptual and Motor Skills. D. Quera-Salva.and Schuman. D.H. (2002). 875-878.
Per. D.R.A.A. K. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety.. Hyder. 147-154. (1980). duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. (1971). 9-14
. Journal of Sleep Research. Locus of Control in Personality. 63. and Al Haji. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. R. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Superstition.M. G. 1153. G. London: Taylor & Francis.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Perry. P. D.ictct.. and Renner.
Peden. E.) (2004).C. (1999). Mohan.
Philip. Campo Grande. March 20-22. Scurfield.A. A.B. M. Taillard. 619-623. L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 12(3). 35. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Morristown NJ: General Learning.
Peters.. W.. Simple reaction time. (2003).. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. (1986).
Peden.R. and Singh.
Pestonjee. 2007 from http:www. Automotive Vehicle Safety. T. S. and Åkerstedt.J. (2005). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. 324. E. B.s
Pelz. Geneva. and Peters. 3. and Hyder. 8(1). M. Jarawan. (2002).. Brazil. and Baldwin. Matto Grosso do Sul.
J. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Chalmers. 284-288. (1993). Manstead. S. and Campbell. (1996). Traffic Engineering and Control. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. 29(1). E. (2007). and Pant.
Proctor. Human Error. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Journal of Applied Psychology. S. (1991).S.N. and Langley.S.. S. 369-374
Renner. 299-300. 16(3). F.. Ergonomics. 32(2). and Anderle.J. T. Stradling.
Radin Umar. (1965). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 20(4). Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. C. 334-343. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. (1989). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution.
Reeder. J. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. 32. 78-80.J. K.D. 26. internal-external locus of control and depression. (2000).J.
. S. A. L. and Corlett. J.I. 33. 49(4).
Porter. J.H. Breen. R. C. (1990). 1315-1332. Rider training.. T.-G. Disaster Prevention and Management. Hopelessness. 673-678. 32(3). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. P. 733-750.
Reason.E. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents.A. Cambridge University Press. (1994).
Rautela. Baxter. R. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. and Lussier. (1976). (2005). W.. and Harris. 3112). S. 317-333. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Prociuk. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.
Ranney. New York: McGraw Hill. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. D..
34(15). Journal of Safety Research. 1-7. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U. (2003).96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006.. Ergonomics. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. P.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. R. (Ed). R. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Accident Analysis & Prevention. cities.L. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.B. W-R. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes.190. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. E. 485-489. (2002). Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. R. 37(3). Weinstein. M. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.64. and Solomon. Retrieved May 23.Y. 569-582. (2007) Statistik2006. K.efpa. and Voas. Organizational Behavior.A. 453-460.
Retting.. Retrieved December 11. (2003.P.
Romano.G. R. and Huguenin. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. S. 37(1). 2007 from http://www. Tippetts. Stress and Health. (2004). R. E. S.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Singapore: Elsevier.html
Robbins. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rice. P-A. (1999).
Richardson.R. 2007 from http://202. Tippetts.
Rimmö. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. April).
Romano. Report to the General Assembly. T. and Downe. In Rothengatter. In Lim. P. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. 45(8).D. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. and Voas. H. (2000). R.
Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia].
Risser.G. Journal of Safety Research. (2000). Anger. and Nickel.. (2005).pdf
Risser. S. (Eds. S.S. A.
5. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. J. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. (2005).
Rothengatter. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia.
Rosenbloom. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2007). and Bhopal. Traffic safety: content over packaging. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. and Bhopal.
Rotter. whole issue. (Ed. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. topics and methods. In Barjonet. (1966). 489-493. C. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.P. A. T. 45.B. 43(1). 80. In Rothe.
Rothengatter. 43(3).) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 249-258. J. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. (2002). (1998). Capital & Class. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (pp. In Underwood. T.
. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. (1990).B. 428-435
Rothe. 84-115. (2005). 3-12).
Rowley. (2002).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Boston: Kluwer.P. (2001) Objectives. 10. T.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. American Psychologist. M. G. 308-331. (Ed.(Ed. (2006). 595-600). 214-220). T. (1975). 56-67. J. and Shahar.
Rotter. C. Psychological Monographs. M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.B. 88. J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press.
Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2006. 33-36. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. IBU Pejabat Polis. 2003 from http://www. Kuala Lumpur. September 29).gov. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Retrieved December 11. IBU Pejabat Polis. IBU Pejabat Polis. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.). Bukit Aman. Kuala Lumpur. 37(2).
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). (2005).
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). Bukit Aman.
Rude drivers lack emotional control. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.
Salminen. and Heiskanen. (1997). 23-42). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].
Sabey. Thrills. sports and home accidents. Retrieved May 22. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Bukit Aman. (2002). F. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Correlations between traffic. Bukit Aman. In Fuller. 373-376. and Santos (Eds. B. 2007 from http://www. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. (1999). The Star.
. 29(1). p.malaysia-today. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001).rmp. occupational. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003).A2.my. IBU Pejabat Polis. J. Road Safety – Back to the Future. September 26). J. S. S. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. M. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian.
Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). (2005.
and the social psychological road in between. 117-147).
Sagberg. J. D.E. Fosser.F.
Sambasivan. P. (1995). and Langley (2002). In Sansone. and Panter. C. 801-810.F. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand.K. 29(3). (2003).. Ericsson. (Eds. (1997). and Bourne.
Scuffham. L. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. I. B.C. C. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Schneider. 34. P.I. and Young.. (1966).
Scuffham. and Panter. F. 293302
Salih. Morf. 484-491. (2004). Jr.
Schlag. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. M. Jr. 3-16). The research process: of big pictures. H.T. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Healy. and Sætermo.T.. Asian Survey. J. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. conscientiousness. A. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility.A.
Sendut.. (2008. 35. 41. v. and Schade.
 Sansone. A. 673-687. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp.C. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personal correspondence. K.
. 6(9). Severson. K. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. C. little
details. (2000). 314-318. M. and sensation seeking.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp.L.
Schwebel.C. 179-188. Ball. In Healy. and Rizzo. V. Morf. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. In Honjo. M.F. A.E. Traffic Engineering + Control. S. November 15). L.A. Applied Economics.. A. and Bourne. (1981). 38. M.. K. C. Nagoya: Japan. (2006). Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. Regional Development Series.A. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe.. (Ed. 6.).
H. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. American Journal of Psychiatry. 66. (1988). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 180-205). 25.L.
Selzer. 1549-1565. 237-240. and Zakowska. D. C. 3-7. New York: John Wiley & Sons. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling.S. Ketchen. (2003). (1998). and Payne. S. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study..
Siegriest. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. E.
Sekaran. 137-160. Fourth Edition. 361-365. (2000). (Ed. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement.L.. D. and Warshaw.
Sharkin. P-E.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Hartwick. G. (2007). M. 15(3).E. Automobile accidents. 1. U. M. J. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. C. suicide and unconscious motivation. B. K.E. A.M.. P. 46(15). (1988). 119(3). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. (1962).
Shapiro. 397-404. Hult. Ergonomics. (2001). Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). and Roskova.. L. S. Boston: Kluwer. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education.M and Kacmar. Journal of Counseling and Development. Summala. New York: McGraw Hill. (1956). Dewar.. In Barjonet. D. R.H. (2003). and Kanekar.R. 51(1). (2004).
Shinar. Journal of Consumer Research.
Shinar. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. 325-343. B. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.
Shook. Strategic Management Journal.P.
Boca Raton.. (Ed.A. Journal of Risk and Insurance.A. Jr.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp.C.
Stanton. 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. (2001. (1998). Matthews. H. Ergonomics. Retrieved December 25. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications.pdf
Spielberger.K. 14(4). 47(8). coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. In Kassinove. 50(8). P. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.. Issues in Science and Technology.. B. London: Arnold. and Coombs. Stress. American Psychologist. A. 1151-1158. (1977)..D.
Spielberger. Oxford UK. M.. 477-492. August). (2007). In Stanton. E.D. 21(4). and Frank. Product design with people in mind. and Poirier. Kurylo. B. FL: Taylor & Francis. Retrieved December 1.sirc. and Sydeman. M. (2007). Reheiser. Winter).
Slovic. 386-397.J. R. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Lichtenstein. Measuring the experience.R.). P.C. 2007 from http://www.. D. 237-258. N.A. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. (1992). C. S. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. 44. B. Crowson. and Watson. Fishchoff.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1
Snyder. (1995).K. B.. (2004). J. Cognitive Therapy and Research. C. and Guest. International Journal of Stress Management.
Social Issues Research Centre (2004.G. J.J. Editorial.
Stanton. N. 1-18). (Ed. S. Auto safety and human adaptation.
Slinn. Corrigan. Houston. 1029-1030.
Sinha. P. N. 49-68).. expression and control of anger. 2007 from http://findarticles. C. (1997).
Journal of Applied Psychology. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Journal of Psychology.. Medical Journal of Malaysia. UK: Edward Elgar. G. (2005). 178-182.
. and Havland. (Eds. Morrison. (2000). (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. (1978). N.
Stokols. Traffic congestion. 139(6). 279-300). D.E. and Ryan. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. (2001). Maggio. 63.
 Stough. In Stough. 529-544. Palamara.L.. J. R.. T. 1359-1370. 467-480. R. New York: Guilford. 949-964.M. (2001). E. T. (2003). J. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.W. A.
Stevenson. Cheltenham. N. P. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.
Stewart.A.. M. R. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. 37(4). H. N. and Liwag..
Steiner. Stokols. M..A. Novaco.) Intelligent Transportation Systems.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. Trabasso. and Erol. Sümer. 43(9).C.E. (1993). D.
Sümer. (1988). M. 35. and Jin. J. N. The Methodology of Theory Building. N.
Sümer. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. R. Traffic Injury Prevention. N. and Pinto. In Lewis. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. (1996). and stress. Type A Behavior. and Campbell. D.R. 681-688. R..) Handbook of Emotions (pp.R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 247-254. 2(4). 44(3). (Ed. M. (2005).
103-117. (2005). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 82-92).. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. 491-506. (Eds. (1980). Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. H. T. and Gunes. 703-711. 18(4).. and Tantriratna. Nguntra. 31. M. (Report 11).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 38. Journal of Traumatic Stress... 22(1-3).N. P.
Summala. H. T. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. P. (2006). Helsinki. H. H.
Summala.. and Lajunen.
Swaddiwudhipong. Koonchote. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. T. (Ed.. In Underwood. (1986). 38(3). and de Bruin.
Summala. R. and Carbonell Vaya E. H. and Punto. (2005). Nieminen. (1988).
Summala. Özkan. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. G. (1996). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. R. In Rothengatter.K. (1996). Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. N. (1994). 442-451. In In Rothengatter. S. 41-52). (Eds. (1997).
Sümer. T. A. 193-199. G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Karanci. pedestrians and road environments involved in
. T. Personal resources. Human Factors. and Merisalo. W. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. Ergonomics.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. vehicles. Safety Science. and Näätänen. H. Berument. 21. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Summala. H. 383-394). Mahasakpan. H. S. A. 331-342. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision.
Summala. Accident risk and driver behaviour. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. N. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey.
A... and Huba.. P. Journal of Social Psychology. and Papacostas. 138(5).G.E. New York: Thomas & Cromwell.
Theeuwes. J. The effects of road design on driving.
Taylor. 25(1).S. Fujihara.
Tanaka. The interaction of attention and emotion. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary
GLS estimation. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role.. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.
Synodinos. In Grimm. 241-263). Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. T. and Yarnold. and Theodorson.
Tavris. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. Journal of Clinical Psychology. G. S.
. In Barjonet. D. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. (1985). J. Ono. and Kitamura. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. A. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Ono.M. T. P. Kuhn. and Fragopanagos (2005). C. C. Y. and Kitamura. 581-590. (2000).C.. 33(2). (1969). G. New York: Simon & Schuster. 18(4). (1989). 609-615. and Layde. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 241-257. J. 34. Neural Networks. L. 167-172. 353-369. Sakamoto.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.. Sakamoto. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1985).233-239. S. (Ed. 37-44.J. E. (1998).) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.S. S. B.R. E.M. S.
Theodorson.. (2001). 42.
Thompson. Y.R. (eds. G. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.
Tavris. Fujihara. N. (1996). P-E.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. (2001). 52(6). International Review of Applied Psychology. E.
Tanaka. Boston: Kluwer.
Tversky. 207-332. J. 279-297. and McClure.F. 32(3). and response to a traffic safety campaign. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. L. D. Mills. and Everatt.E. 147-152.
Ulleberg. and Sanders. Personality predictors of driving accidents.
Trick. and Vavrik. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. (1999). 321-333. G. 2. (1974). Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. 23(1). (Eds. Applied Cognitive Psychology. O. B. Wright and Crundall. Science. Judgment under uncertainty. London: Academic.
Underwood. 185. A. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. and Kahneman. In Neumann. C.W. Anger while driving. (1985). accident involvement. 4(4). and Kahneman. G. (1996). 11-22. Chapman.M. Cognitive Psychology. and Kirkcaldy. P. (1973). Journal of Counseling Psychology. 55-68. G.) Handbook of Perception and Action. J.
Turner. J. 5. (1997). D.A and Hobbs. Personality and Individual Differences.T. Volume 3: Attention. (2004). Enns. 106(5). C. J. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. W. A. The accident prone automobile driver. A. (1993). Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.
. H. 385-424. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty.. American Journal of Psychiatry. 7. and Milton. 10(3).
Underwood. G. D. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. P. R. (2003).
Tversky. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1949). 445-448. 1124-1130.
Thurman.. Personality subtypes of young drivers. 5(5). 123-130.
. Accident Analysis and Prevention. É.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande
Vassallo. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. 336-345. D. J. T.
Vaa. In Rothengatter. Matto Grosso do Sul.
Velting. Personality and Individual Differences.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. D.J.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. S. 181-190).B. Ergonomics. A. J.F. J. 2007 from http:www.M. “Accident prone. R. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale.
Vasconcellos. On-line driver workload estimation. and Huguenin.ictct. (Eds.
Utzelmann. (2004). 24-29. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (1998).D.. (1999). Smart. 9(2). 210-222. H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. A. Retrieved December 5..pdf
Vallières. Retrieved September 1.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.. Harris. S. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.A. March 20-22. (2001). 2007 from www. E. Ergonomics.
Vavrik.. 26. Brazil. A. (Ed. 43(2).D. 913-921. and Vallerand. T. and Rothengatter. W. Italy. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).. (2005). In Underwood. G. M. T... and McIntyre. (1999). Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures.A. Harrison. Sanson. W. Meijman. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Van der Hulst. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. (2005). 42.F. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. (2000). 444-458. R. Cockfield. Bergerson. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.” Recovery. 39. Caserta. Campo Grande.
M. and Carbonell Vaya E. Backwoods Home Magazine.html. Journal of Counseling Psychology. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. T. H. M. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. D. P.pdf
Waller. 117128.com/articles/waterman37. 438-447. Personality and Individual Differences. M.B. L. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.A. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. Retrieved November 2. (1997). 50(4). and Little.theaa. and Mallinckrodt (2003). (Eds. Stanton. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. A. Wellington.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave.M.
Walker. (2002).P. and Zaidel. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. Heppner.. (2009.E. R. and Young.H. 427-433. (2000). 2007 from http://www. (2001). Transportation and society.
Waterman. 1-8). 123-142. W.. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety.. J. 9. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.R. A. F. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 33. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. P. Retrieved December 15.A.
Watson.T. B..P. N. January 21). Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.
Wállen Warner. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. G. (2001)..S. (2006). 2008 from http://www. New Zealand.
Waylen. and Åberg.
.J. T. In Rothengatter.F. P. 5(4). Raghunathan. and McKenna.backwoodshome. (1998). Shope.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.F. 421-444. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 28.
.L. In Yager. G.J. University of Waterloo Press. (2007). Snow. (ed.M (1956). 207-219. E.
Wells. (1982). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 450-455. (1993). 130(4). 8. 195.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. (2005).
469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. Ceminsky. Fox. S..). G. (Ed. (1988). 34. (pp. M. 441-468.W. Ergonomics. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions.J. and Klerman. G. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra
. 1116-1121. Accident Prevention. G.
Wheatley.M. 209-225.. Risk Analysis.. G.. (1984). R. Guiling. K. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. (2002).S.S.S..
West. Preventions of accidents in childhood. S.
Weissman.J. 1149-1152.S. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. (1994). Childhood accidents. British Journal of Psychology. M.J. American Journal of Psychiatry. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. D. and Anderson. 271278. In Halsey.
 Wheatley. M. Wiliams. Dunaway. 84. 2.
Wilde. Accident Analysis and Prevention.J. Target Risk. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. J. G.
Wilde. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. and French. R. G. G. 31. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts.S. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. Advances in Paediatrics. Elander. B. G. G. (2002). 324.
Wilde. Mild social deviance. 15(11/12).
Wells-Parker. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. 135-154).
Wilde. J. P.N. (1961). (1973).J.S. Toronto: PDE Publications..
Williamson. Brazil. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. and Poythress. (2003). M. (2000). S.ictct. D. March 20-22. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. A.
Wood. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women.F. and Boyd. New York: Taylor & Francis. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. M. J. Welsh. Responsibility of drivers. Applied Ergonomics. (1996). A. and Hartman.G. by age and gender. Psychological Assessment. V.G.E. Mastering the World of Psychology. Wood.
Williamson. for motor-vehicle crash deaths.Y.I.
Williams.. Lenard. 807-811. Boston: Pearson. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population.. (2001). (Ed.
. J. 303346. 6(2). 2007 from http:www.S. Journal of Safety Research. Matto Grosso do Sul. Gavin. Retrieved March 31. 110-131.. and Well.A. T.
Wilson. Space and Culture. N.
Williams.K. 55(175).B. 34(5). Campo Grande. A. Boyd. T. S. (2008). T. 8. L.
Williams. 99-109. A. 398-403.Workshop. N. (2003).. 31. J.
Williams. 26(6). In Hanson. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.R. Cascardi. Countries and Their Cultures. Farmington Hills MI: Gale.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 527-531. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. (1994). and Shabanova. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. (2004). 557-567. E. International Social Science Journal. (1999).C. 1.
Woodcock.. J.J. (2003). M.F. Flyte and Garner.
Yergil. S. 43(9).A. theatre and tourism.R. D. Report of an Advisory Group. (2000).
World Health Organization [WHO] (1957).
Yaapar. Ergonomics. 487-503). and Harris. Islam. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. D. 42(5). Technical Report Series No. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. (2007). Asian Journal of Social Science. Ergonomics. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. 118.
World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. .
. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research.C. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Young. M. (2005). 46-58. D. (2005). L. Head tilt during driving. Geneva. Ergonomics. (Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G. 50(1). A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. and Stanton. N. In Underwood.
Zikovitz. (1999). and Chaffin. X. 740-746. 1314-1330. Country reports.
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. to the individual” (Brown &
. the brake line pressure is relates. allowing the wheel to turn. Immediately after releasing the pressure. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. differential accident involvement). on most surface types. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols:
ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control
Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. presumably because of personality factors. (see also. As a result. or benefits. ABS ensures that.
Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926.
the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. The central idea is that. black spot)
Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. (see also. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. road and traffic conditions. risk homeostasis theory. In the present research. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. 2004. task capability theory) .Noy.
. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. characteristics of road users. time of week and. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. 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. (see also. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. (see also. Also referred to as risk compensation. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. distal variable. black event)
Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. it refers to a combination of circumstances. McKenna of the University of Reading. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. crash outcome)
Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. proximal variable. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. p. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. rather than a theory. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. 25).
Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. where possible. including driver behaviour. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. accident proneness)
Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. (see also. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables.
then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco.
Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human.. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. self-concept. 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. ability. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. accident proneness)
Inner speech: see self-talk. Department of Transportation. In traffic psychology. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. intelligence. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. motivation. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness.
Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. not as a unidimensional. in-crash. William Haddon Jr. selfefficacy and self-esteem. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums.
.S. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency.
Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). 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). demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions.
Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. (see also. 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. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. (see also. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. values. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I).Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. aptitudes. interests.
Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. bicycling. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life.
Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. p. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.
Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. conversely. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. motorised bicycles. motor vehicles included automobiles. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id.
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. most usually on roads. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal
. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. trucks (lorries). as expressed by Raymond Cattell.
Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. including life goals” (Chaplin.
Private speech: see self-talk. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Wilde.S. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. For the purposes of the present research.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land.
Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. the individual differences approach. 1985. 333-334). For the purposes of the present research. 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”. That is. Included in this term are walking. the ego and the superego. and buses.
the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. 35). including the network.
Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. draining system. behavioural adaptation.
Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network.
Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. target risk. bridges. but only
. archways and footpaths.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. (see also. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. 1996. Within the context of this research.
Road safety engineering: “a process. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. at both conscious and unconscious levels.” (Ogden. tunnels. p. overpasses.
Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. as the result of injury sustained in the crash. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. signage. 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. parking spaces. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. stopping places. zero risk theory)
Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment.and snow-covered roads during the winter months.
Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo.
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. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive.
Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour.
Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (see also.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. perceived
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): was proposed by Martin Fishbein at the time with the University of Illinois at Urbana and presently of the Annenberg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. risk homeostasis theory)
Task cube. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. According to RHT proponents. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. theory of reasoned action. behaviour control) (see also. which are the best predictors of behaviour. According to Wilde (1994). (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. hierarchical adaptation theory)
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. (see also. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. theory of planned behavriour)
. On dry roads. remains constant at the target level. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation 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. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. (see also.
risk homeostasis theory)
. from its outset. comfort. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced.Traffic management: planning. convenience and economy. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. ergonomics. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. behavioural adaptation. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. motorised and non-motorised. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. time. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. coordinating. management science and economics.
Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory.
Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. road engineering. community planning.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. that share the same road infrastructure. (see also.
Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. In the present research.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales
S. San Antonio. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. 2000).70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below:
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. CA 90025 USA
http://portal. C. Beck & Steer. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. Hawaii 96822 USA
http://www. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 1993). TX 78259 USA
http://pearsonassess. Papacostas & Synodinos. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise.html
.wpspublish.edu/~csp/csp.eng.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors.com/portal/page?_pageid=53.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1549&query=Beck%20Hopelessness%20Scale&hiword= BECKER%20Beck%20Hopelessness%20SCALED%20SCALES%20SCALING%20Scale%20
Behaviour in Traffic Scale (BIT. 19500 Bulverde Road. Buss & Warren.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Brace & Company).hawaii. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.
psych.R. Houston.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.ukans.
. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Snyder. Snyder. Crowson. 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. Kansas 66045 USA
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF)
please answer the following questions: 2.g..g. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Most of the time when you travel.what manufacturer & model (e. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. 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
. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. We are not asking for your name. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. 1.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no
Personal Information Form
Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. _________. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. _________.
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. most of the time ___ no
11. most of the time ___ no 10. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ )
. all the time ___ yes.8. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. When you want to use a motorcycle. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.
12. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that 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:__________________________________________ ) 13. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female
17. 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. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
. Within the last twelve months. What is your gender? 16.