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

ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008

Siti Hasmah Digital Library

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

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

 Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved

ii

DECLARATION

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

______________________ Alan Giffin Downe

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

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

iv

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

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

v

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

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

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

vi

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

Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. BIT. The role of the proximal variable. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. As hypothesised. Among distal variables. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. Results indicated that. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. viii . as well. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. As reported in previous studies. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship.

1 An Applied Perspective 2.4 Risk Theories 2.2 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.3.3.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.3.3 ix .1 Concepts.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.5 1.3.3.2.1.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2 2.4.3.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.2.2.1 Accident Proneness 2.1 1.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2. Theories and Models 2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.3.1.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3 1.2.4 1.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.

6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.4.2 Process Models 2.1.2.3 Locus of Control 3.2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2.3.3.5.5 2.2.5.6.5.4.3 Ethnicity 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.2.5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2.2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.1.5.1.3.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 Gender 2.1 Experience 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.4. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.2.1.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.4 Hopelessness 3.1 Demographic Variables 2.1.2.5.2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.1 Statistical Models 2.5.3.6 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.5.5.5.5.2.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.4.3.2 Hopelessness 2.4.2.3.4 2.5.1 3.6.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.5.3.1 Age 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .4.5.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3.1 Locus of Control 2.9.7.3 Psychological Variables 2.4.3.3.1.4.

1 Studies 1 and 2 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.2.5.3.7 3.7.5.5.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.2.4 Study 2 3.2.2.6.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.4 3.5.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.6 3.2.3.3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.5.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.7.7.2.1 The Sample 3.7.7.2 Research Instruments 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2.7.7.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.5.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .2.3 3.5.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.3.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.1 Study 1A 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.7.2 Study 1B 3.5.7.7.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.7.3.7.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3 Study 1C 3.3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).2.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.5 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.6.7.

6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.5 4.6.1.1 Results of Study 1 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.1.12.2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.3.2.6.2 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.4 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 4.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.3.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.5.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.3.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.6.2.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.6.1 Age.1 Description of the Sample 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.1.2.6.12.2.2.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.5.6.6 xii .3 Validity Test Results 4.1.15 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 4.5.2.6.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.

8.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.5.6.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.1 5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4.9.4.7.6 xiii .5 5.8 4.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.9.6.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.8.7.3.5.4 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.1 Study 1C 4.2 5.5.3.6.7. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.2 Study 2 4.4.6.8.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8.5.9.3.7 4.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.5.5.5.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.

1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.3 Driver Selection.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.1 Theory vs.7.7.7.6.7.3 Education 5.2 Engineering Interventions 5.7 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4.7.5.4.7.7.

Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.8 111 121 121 122 4.1 3. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.3 3.1 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. Table Page 2.7 4.4 115 117 118 119 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.LIST OF TABLES No.10 4.6 4.4 3.1 2.3 114 4. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.5 4.2 4.3 3.5 4.9 4.11 xv .2 3.

17 129 4.13 4.19 133 4.25 138 4.27 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.14 4.4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.20 134 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.18 131 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.21 135 4.28 4.23 136 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.22 136 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.12 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.16 128 4.

36 4.2 5.35 4.38 Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Direct Effects of Ethnicity on AQ Total and Subscale Factors 149 150 Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors 152 Summarised Results on the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Different Contextual Models (Study 3) BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 160 163 167 169 171 173 4.1 199 206 207 5.37 4.5 209 225 5.3 5.6 xvii .31 4.32 4.4.4 208 5.33 4.30 4.41 175 5.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.39 4.34 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 3.7 2.2 3. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.2 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.6 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 2. Hatakka.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3. 1996.LIST OF FIGURES No. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.9 59 2.4 4. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.3 2.3 4.1 4.2 147 148 4.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.4 2.4 148 xviii . 2.3 3.

7 4.6 4.5 4.12 4.9 4.10 4.4.13 xix .8 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.

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

2002. 2007. state of mind and physical well-being. Stanton & Pinto. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. Enns. Mohan & Hyder. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Sleet. Graham. Theeuwes. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 2004). perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. policy-makers. 2002). such as Malaysia. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Trick.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. 2004) have been studied extensively. Verwey. 11). Consistently over the years. Sabey (1999). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Even after decades of study. road. Ogden. judgement. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved.. 2002) and road safety engineering (e.. Peters & Peters. Scurfield. cognitive (Vaa. 2007. commented that. 2004).g. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 2000). the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. including the 1 . Green. perceptual (Hong. for instance. 2000. 2001). 2000). Iwasaki. 2001. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. 1999). 1996.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Olson. anticipation.g. 2006. Mills & Vavrik. Furuichi & Kadoma. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills.

332 drivers and 15. 21). 2003). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance.790. There was a total of 341. McKenna. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. locus of control. p. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 1989). 1983). Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. including the study of a large number of variables.roadway. The chapter 1.351. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. A total of 10. 2002. 2 . describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. However. According to Dewar (2002b). This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 2004. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2007).112). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2005). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. “the literature on personality has a long history.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.

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

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

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

2000). Rothengatter. 2004). Hatakka. road safety measures and public policy. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Some authors have suggested that. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. 2001. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. “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. 1997). The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. There is a growing sentiment that. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. the plethora of theories available. in the applied sciences. Laapotti. 1993). 1997. 2004. 94). Näätänen & Summala.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 6 . Utzelmann. Moreover. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. The present research offers a perspective on this divergence of viewpoints by discussing how empirically-based models of behavioural processes can be strengthened through a priori integration with broader theoretical precepts. 1974). an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 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. p. 2005. Katila & Peräaho. 2004. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 deaths per 10. 2005). Radin Umar.228 9. Studies 13 . from 189.286 9.741 38.417 47.425 5.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. 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. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6.000 vehicles (Law. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. 2005). 2005). In Malaysia.040 2004 6.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.218 2005 6.200 9.653 2004 326.815 2005 328.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.2). Table 2. 2003. Subramaniam & Law. Table 2.287 in 2006.98 deaths per 10. Mohd Zulkiflee. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. This suggests that studies.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.645 54.552 37.287 9. in Malaysia.395 2006 6. 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.264 2006 341.236 49.891 8.425 2003 6.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. 2007).7111 2003 298.415 52.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.012 19. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.885 35.000 vehicles in 2006. Generally. Abdul Rahman. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. & Wong.091 37.304 in 1994 to 6.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.

68 128 0.45 30 0.31 3. Table 2.921 100 20.08 541 2.37 337 1.620 7.448 17.709 8.99 164 0. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.389 6.81 1. 2002.025 9.216 10.56 3.81 3. or an average of RM4. in 1999 alone.21 3. 2003).2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.72 554 2.27 458 2.97 1.947 10.08 1.67 206 0.15 3.05 2.205 11.41 302 1.07 2.48 323 1. It has been reported that.551 12.049 15.67 billion. or about 2.180 10.05 1.50 979 4.92 1.378 11.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.23 2.418 100 19.15 43 0.40 1.22 150 0.08 585 2.64 135 0.15 572 2.76 22.038 13.91 984 4.07 2.967 100 19.110 10.84 1.94 625 3.71 543 2.820 13.49 450 2.29 708 3.086 9.82 1.431 7. 2001).90 159 0. Palamara.85 2.77 3.469 15.92 2.05 2. 14 . 2006).4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.10 3.4 billion to RM5.309 10.16 90 0.953 17.11 2.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000. Morrison & Ryan.81 2.29 2. 2001.85 147 0.65 2.178 15. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.68 3.08 2.341 12.005 15. and particularly among younger drivers.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.47 280 1.315 17.80 203 0. general insurers paid RM1. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.54 708 3.803 9.997 14.48 105 0.416 6.65 121 0.06 608 3.26 463 2.593 11.61 99 0.023 5.94 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.034 4. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. 2005).63 160 0.94 1.7 billion.

lane definition. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 2005). Criticisms of road configuration. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. traffic congestion. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. if people want to die? (Lim. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge.Yet. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. 2006). In 1999. or the pain of the maimed. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. (Bernama. 1999). 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. 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. which is actually a nightmare. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. What else can we do. The economic consequences can be estimated. Some seven years later.

for instance. 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. In a recent newspaper interview.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. 2005). Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. In 2006. senior policy-makers and politicians alike are shining the spotlight on the way in which Malaysian drivers’ traits and states may be contributing to the incidence of roadway accidents. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. Researchers. 2007).(Abdul Rahman et al. Generally. newspaper columnists. as compared with 1. is often mentioned as a factor. 2005). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . 2006). 1997). Krishnan & Radin Umar. given greater risks of accident. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Who they are. 2001. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. unlike in other countries. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. how they think. though. the Director-General of Malaysia’s Road Safety Department summarised popular opinion by stating: The problem we have is that our road-users are not mature. 2007).

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

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

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

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

information processing. 1996. 1993). 2003). 1961. 2005). motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. Wagenaar & van Koppen. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 21 . 2003). 2002.2. Preston & Harris. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag.2. there has been an interest in driver personality. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 482). Underwood & Milton. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.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. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg.2. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. 1997a). the lack of replication of many studies.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 2. Nevertheless. 321).

4). in a Spanish survey. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. According to Rothengatter (2001).2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset.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. or peculiar to. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. To wit. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. psychology. 3). 2. Ochando. medicine.2. 2002). traffic and transportation. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. in the field of traffic. transportation planning. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.654-655.2. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. ergonomics. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger.) 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. but that complex traffic 22 . anthropology and sociology. Indeed. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. 246). Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or the psychological support for intervention. eoncompassing engineering.” (p. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to.

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

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

1985). there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. p. A-18) Often.. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. whether theories should explain everyday driving. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. or accident-causing behaviours.3. Reasons for this are likely several. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 1969). To a degree. this may be due to 25 . 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. but for the purposes of this thesis. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. often in mathematical form. many models have been proposed. In traffic psychology. 2000.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. 2. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. 2005. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. or both.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. 2005). On the other hand. p. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. in traffic psychology. 1995). Healy.

Rothengatter.. cognitive. 2002). not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. avoid obstacles. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. attitudes. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. etc. 2004. 2005).the imprecise definition of concepts. feel in control. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. given the complexity of human behaviour. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. 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. 2. Notwithstanding these difficulties. For over ninety years. 26 . perceptions. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. Groeger (2000) took a similar position with regard to the range of driver motivations: Although any rational analysis would surely place preservation of one’s own personal safety at the heart of the concerns of a driver. and emotional determinants. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. 189). I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. risk adaptation theories. minimise delay and driving time.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. motives and personalities (Robbins.3. Instead. social. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. and most of the time is not especially influential. enjoy driving.

McRae &Costa. Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). 1995. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . 2000). 1990). In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. However. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. 1979). anxiety and driving anger. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. neuroticism. According to Rothengatter (2002). Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 1980) and other safety outcomes. 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. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. conscientiousness. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. for instance. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. aggression. but not occupational accidents. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. aged 16 to 29 years. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents.

occupational and otherwise. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. 2. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. 1993. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. If each individual has a unique λ-value. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. sensori-motor skill. in certain cases. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. found first that the frequency of accidents. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander.3. 1920). the average number of accidents. personality. just as one can meaure height. “irrespective of environment. 1962.152).finding. 290). λ. during and following the war years. West & French. 1984). weight and perhaps even intelligence. p. Research by board statisticians. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it.3. According to Haight (2004). It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. In 1917. his or her accident proneness. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . p. but persists today.

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

So. 2. Pijl. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention.3.3. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p.. 1993). in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. 1998). Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. therefore. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. The concept itself is ill-defined. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1980. 562).05. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.sports. Stolk. sports and family settings. Ultimately. Visser. 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. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . 8-9). roadway. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. pp.

Elander et al. albeit not crash occurrence. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. That is.accident proneness (Chmiel. A driver who enters a construction zone.3. 2000). concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. substantially. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. following their review of the literature. Wilde (1982. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. For example.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. Summala and Mersalo (1980) demonstrated that drivers using studded tyres increased their speed to a level where the skid margin approached that of drivers using normal tyres. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. 2. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant. in a study of driving on icy roads.3. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do.4. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. 2. The introduction of divided highways. experience more accidents than others. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour.. crash barriers. 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. large earth-moving 31 . However.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. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. in fact.

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

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

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

1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. age and social variables. On the other hand.learn how to respond safety to. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. much of which arises from personality. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Meijman & Roghengatter. Gregersen. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation Huguenin (2001) has argued that the main problem with considering driver behaviour within a risk-based framework is that drivers tend to adapt their behaviour in different way on differing strategic levels. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold.1). 2002. Summala (1996. 35 . such as time pressure. Van der Hulst. Reeder et al.3. A large number of studies show that external motives. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. 1999). and specific driver actions. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. 2. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1998. for instance. 1996. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Keskinen. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. as a result. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Hataaka. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.

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

6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 1982. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. 252). However.1). Fuller (2000.. 2000) 37 . Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. affective states). drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Most of the time. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. high speeds. 2.3. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 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.g. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.

Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. Since 1985. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. p.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. emotional state. Two limitations have been noted. According to the TRA.Fuller’s theory has. 1985. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. Fishbein & Ajzen. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour.3. 1985. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand.3. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. objects. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. 40).6. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. for the most part. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. p. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. 2004. however. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 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. 1991). Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 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. time pressure). and Keskinen et al. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. Generally. 126).

39 . see Figure 2. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). “Even very mundane activities. According to the TPB. p. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.3. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 2007). 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”). Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 1985. however (Sharma & Kanekar. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). 24). To deal with this uncertainty. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).” (Azjen. then. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 2.7. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty.2).

stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 2002. 253). 40 . 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. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. Further. when intention is held constant. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. or sense of self-efficacy. greater perceived control (i. 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.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 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. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 2003). p. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. 1989) Within the theory. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. In one study.Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). speed on a major road or overtake dangerously.e..

2). (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. 2002). roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Austin and Carson (2002). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. 2. Similar to later findings by Law et al.4 2. Attitude toward speeding. but after controlling for distance travelled. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. vehicles.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.1. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. 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. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes.2. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. 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. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data.4. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).In another study. based on data extracted from police record forms. 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.

4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Swaddiwudhipong. 1998. More recently. however. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements.4). some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. 1997) 42 . One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. R. the road (R) and the environment (E). 1997. 1994). within specific situational contexts. the vehicle (V). Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.4. Mahasakpan. 2000). 1999).2 Process Models 2. E and especially H factors. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. Nguntra.g.locations and settings (e.4.2.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H).. Richardson & Downe. Seow & Lim. Law. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. 2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. Koonchote & Tantiratna.

when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. 283). on one hand. speeding. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.g.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. 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. 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. gender.. aggression). age. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk.2. substance abuse) that. By contrast.4. contribute directly to crash outcomes.. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. as well. Within the generic model. more proximal variable. it may influence crash risk through some other. sensation seeking.g. Factors within the distal context include not only road.2. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. on the other hand. Personality factors within the 43 . the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. Therefore. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. extraversion. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.5).g.

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

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

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

choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. However. and non-professional students who were mostly students. he found that. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. more relevant to the model he proposed. given wide 47 . dangerous drinking).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. Using structured equation modelling. anger). while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. anxiety. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2.4.2. hostility. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. errors). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. In turn. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further. hostility. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. verbal aggression. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. psychoticism).

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

They found that the effect of proximal variables. phobia. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. Sümer. including perceived control. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain.2. navy. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. In other words. have acted on those recommendations. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. prior to the present one. Berument and Gunes (2005). sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. In another study. optimism. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. air force and gendarmerie. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. reported that driver anger. self esteem. Karanci. anxiety. 49 . using a similar research design.4. hostility. Bilgic. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). 2. Sümer. 225). yielding support for the contextual mediated model. for instance.aberrant driving behaviours. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. material loss. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army.

Weinstein & Solomon. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. Type A.8).g. aggression) Safe Work Practices  hazard identification and reporting  risk avoidance  procedural compliance  use of safety devices and equipment  occupational hygiene  help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential     safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. 2003). Yet.1. Distal factors Safety interventions  knowledge transfer  ergonomic design  safety audits Proximal factors Safety climate  worker attitude toward safe work  perceived management priority  employee empowerment and control over safety  post-injury administration  return-to-work policies  operating policies & procedures Outcomes Organisational Impacts  lower injury rates and lost time relative to labour input and output  reduced accident severity  reduced risk assessment  standards compliance  increased worker satisfaction Psychosocial variables     locus of control risk acceptance/aversion impulsivity cultural factors (e.Downe (2007). Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Odero et al..g.5. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. Campbell & Williams.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e. Retting.5.. Williams & Shabanova.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.5 2. 2002. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . 1995). in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 1997. 2003.. 2007) 2.

Connery & Stiller. Billittier. Vassallo et al. tobacco smoking.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. Jehle. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. Jonah. Matthews & Moran. at least in part. specifically more likely to drive too fast. the contrary appears to be true. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . Moscati. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. 2002a. 221). The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together..The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. 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. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. in many cases. follow too closely. In fact. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. this is a reflection of lifestyle. overtake dangerously. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. The former is less experienced at driving. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 2001. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. 1986). less emotionally mature. Bina. drive while fatigued. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. 1997b. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Harré. p. for these difficulties. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. 2007). Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. However.

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

129). for instance.4).5. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Monárrez-Espino. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. 2. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced.g. Chipman. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. MacGregor. for instance.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females.. self-reported injury would also increase. “In all studies and analyses. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. 2004. darkness)” (p. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. for instance. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. it was also hypothesised that. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. more often at hazardous times (e. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities.g. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e.failure to use seat-belts. as age decreased. However. without exception. Shope. Elliott. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. as well. Waller. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC].. it 53 . Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Tavris. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. p. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.1. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. 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.

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

In a study of Dutch drivers. as per the traditional pattern. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males.. and loss-of-control incidents.anger. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2006. 2003). McKenna. control of traffic situations. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Turner & McClure. 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. 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. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. though. In other research. just as they had in 1978. indirectly. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. were less frequently involved in crash situations. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. In a subsequent report. showing that male drivers were. Laapotti. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. 55 . Justification of gender-related hypotheses. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. 11). In the present study. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. et al. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). evaluated their driving skill lower. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. (1999) corrected for variation in annual mileage when performing multivariate analysis on a disaggregated data base and found that crash involvement differences between males and females disappeared. on the other hand. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. Lourens et al. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. Female drivers. on crash and injury occurrence. Forward.

Corry. Garrett.5. Romano. Goldweig and Warren. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. 2005). Haliburton. But. To a large degree. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.1.2. for instance. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. nonCatholic countries. Schlundt.S. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Harper. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Marine. Levine. Summala and Hartley (1998). A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Lajunen. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . In one of the few studies reported.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. lower rates of safety belt use. differences in fatalities persisted. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. On the other hand. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors.

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

journey lengths. although not always. and as such. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. 2001).5.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk.2. On the other hand.5. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly.behaviour in traffic. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. etc. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. 2002). the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. increased experience usually. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. Lajunen & Summala. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. 2. Keskinen. A useful way of conceptualising the experience effect is to draw on a cognitive framework proposed by Mikkonen and Keskinen (1983) and later extended 58 . 166). passenger distractions different vehicles.2 Driver Characteristics 2. 1995. directionality of the effect was not predicted. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. A large number of studies have shown that.g. as drivers become more experienced. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Hatakka and Katila. 1971). Allied to this. with different weather conditions. in a given road and traffic scenario. Laapotti. As experience grows..

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

Peltzer and Renner (2003). frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. on the other hand. A simple measure of driving experience. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. was used in this study. Ghiselli & Brown. 2007).. 1954). While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. 2004). 1948. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. 1949. Mintz. such as problems in vehicle handling skills.g. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. Brown & Ghiselli. and especially young male drivers. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. Young novice drivers. for instance. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Female novice drivers. Justification of driver experience hypotheses.Laapotti et al. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e.

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

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

g.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). In contrast. 63 . 15). 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. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first.1 Locus of Control 2. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. and second.3. 1975. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. she separated the externality dimension into two. 1991.5. Holder & Levi. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.1. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.5. Hyman. 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. 1990). or internals.3 Psychological Variables 2.5. or externals . she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.3. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 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.10). Levenson (1975. Stanley & Burrows. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control.2. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.. 2006. 1999). according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.

1989.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2.1.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.3. Sinha & Watson. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. luck.Luckner. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.5.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. 64 . According to Phares (1976). Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.

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

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

reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. indicated that. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Noting that Chinese culture. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . is based on the notion that … luck. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p.1. Italy. France. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. with situation-centred Confucian foundations.5. Hsieh. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Their results. India. Noy (1997). 2. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. 122). chance and fate are taken for granted in life. Germany.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions.3. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. Israel. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. as hypothesised. complexity and unpredictability. Canada and Japan. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. (1991). This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. In very early research. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. Japan. and the USA. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures.

externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. Chinese of Malay extraction. skill and ability. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Cheung. 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. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. all internal characteristics. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. 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. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 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. 68 . Chinese and Indian populations. In very early research. This was very true for the locus of control variable. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. only Cheung. they found that the three ethnic groups in Singapore had greater commonalities in the measured personality constructs than Singaporean-Chinese subjects had with the normative sample. To the author’s knowledge. At the same time. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China.

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

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

learned disinhibitory cues. Filetti. physiological arousal. including subjective feelings of stress. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Malta & Blanchard. Bakou. Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious motivations. 2002. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. In a largely unrelated study. 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. 2000. 2006). Barton and Malta. learned cognitive scripts. Demakakos. Lynch & Oetting. 2000. Chapman.. Koumaki. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. 2003. 71 . Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. Tzamalouka. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Deffenbacher. Wright & Crundall. 2.5. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. Chliaoutaks. Most authors seem to agree with the early contention by Näätänen and Summala (1976) that aggressive driving could result from driver frustration at obstructions such as traffic congestion. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Wells-Parker et al. Richards. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 1999.3 Aggression Since the 1980s.3. Mizell. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. and deindividuation. Underwood. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 2002). & Darviri.

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

TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency.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. on crash and injury occurrence. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Blumenthal. It was also hypothesised. Thurman. 2002. Williams & Haney. Sato. that the total amount. 1999. Narda. McKee. and specific content. 2000. In the present study. Karlberg. Rice. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). 1999). impatience. 2. Petrilli.6. Later still. Undén. 2006. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. insecurity about status. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Magnavita. Lynch. Frueh & Snyder.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. James & Nahl. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Deffenbacher. 73 .6 2. al. Bettencourt et al. Carbone. Elofsson & Krakau. 2006). 1981. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Kamada. 1999. Miyake. 2001). indirectly. Sani.. aggression. competitiveness. (2003). 1985). hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. 1998. Kumashiro & Kume.

similarly. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. driving style. Karlberg et al. 1989. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. where Type A drivers were 4. however. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. In none of these studies. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. alcohol consumption. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. (1998). They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. however.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. gender. Consoli. Perry and Baldwin (2000) argued that it was the tendency of Type A drivers toward a heightened sense of urgency and impatience that created crash risk. West. Nabi. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. Nabi et al. Raikkonen. was driving frequency. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Chiron. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. 1979) and number of accidents. focused on the time urgency component 74 . 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. category of vehicle. Zzanski & Rosenman. age. for instance. In a correlational study of British drivers. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. studied police officers in Italy. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Chastang. but not with accident risk.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). 1990). Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. socio-professional category.

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

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

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

each study explored the extent to which demographic. with the addition of a third psychological variable. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).2).1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter.1). with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. hostile automatic thoughts (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 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. In Study 1C. aggression (see Figure 3. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one.3). Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. Then.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 1B and 1C. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. 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. 78 . In Study 1B. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1.

In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).

In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).

79

DISTAL CONTEXT H2

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

H5

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7

H1.2

BHS x Locus of Control

H9

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

80

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables
 Gender  Ethnicity  Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H4 H5

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

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

H1.2

H8

H6
Hopelessness (BHS)

H7 H12 H9

Locus of Control x AQ

BHS x Locus of Control

Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)

81

DISTAL CONTEXT
Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Driving frequency

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

H2

Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

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

H1.1

Crash Occurrence

H10

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control

H11

H1.2 H8

Injury Occurrence

H4

H5
Locus of Control x AQ

H6
Hopelessness

H7 H12

BHS x Locus of Control

H9 H15

HAT x AQ

Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)

82

DISTAL CONTEXT

PROXIMAL CONTEXT

OUTCOME

Driver Characteristics
 Driver experience  Taxicab experience

H2

Demographic Variables
Ethnicity & Age

H3

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

Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)

Crash Occurrence

H11

   

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

H1.1
Injury Occurrence

H1.2

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

H8

Locus of Control x AQ

H12

Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)

83

3.2

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

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

3.2.1

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

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

3.2.2

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

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

3.2.3

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

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

84

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

2003. Oetting. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 .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). Specifically. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. In the present research. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. through fighting. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. expressed through the presence of irritability. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Vallières. Lynch & Morris. 1996). Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). social alienation and paranoia. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. 2005).2. hitting or interpersonal violence. 1957. Bergeron & Vallerand. were also investigated. frustration. and. Deffenbacher. 3. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. The effects of participants’ total aggression.

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

2.. 3.3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle. the influence of driving experience. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. to the extent of inattention conditions. 88 .3 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. in Study 1A. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. 3. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. Then. Then. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. three demographic variables (driver age.2. (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. In the resulting measure of this variable.g. travel frequency. and. while driving.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).them (e.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash.

the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. 3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. 3. Then. Finally.3. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. In this study. In this study.3. Then. hopelessness. the influence of driving characteristics. Then. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. three demographic variables (driver age. In Study 1B. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . the influence of driving characteristics. Finally. Then. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency. Figure 3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency.3 Study 1C In Study 1C.

4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. Figure 3. First. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3.3. Then. the influence of experience. Finally. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. and (b) taxi experience. 90 . Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. 3. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. 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. Finally. In Study 3. This was justified for three reasons. 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. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. In Study 3. 3.

limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations. 3.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.1.2.1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Third.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Second. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.2: 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 H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.

2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.1.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: 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 H4.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3.1.3.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.2.2.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.Table 3.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.4: 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 H3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.

Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.5.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. using the same procedures as in Study 1. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3. 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 93 .2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C. within a 14-month period.5 3. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.

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.5.2 Research Instruments 3. while participants were driving. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. 1978). 3.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. For inclusion in the study. I try to urge its driver to move 94 .g. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. 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). all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.time when they travelled. In all cases. during a point to point trip. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. 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..2.5. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. by postal mail. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Stokols. Novaco. in the case of Study 3 participants. Stokals & Campbell.

” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Freeway urgency 14 III. to school or to an appointment with someone.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. In a later study.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.2. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Table 3. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. as indicated in table 3.91) were found to be internally consistent. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. On each form. with a coefficient alpha of .” “While travelling to work (or to school). of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Usurpation of right-ofway No.” II. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems.80.” “On a clear highway. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .

I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”.5. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). 3. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. References to the faster. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.2. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. 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. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. 96 .

5. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” 97 . and five subscales measure physical aggression. anger.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. if endorsed.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.” “When people annoy me. Table 3.3). I might give him or her the silent treatment.5. 1982. I may mess up someone’s work. 1996). Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Of the 20 true-false statements. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. or 0. 1974).3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. Durham. 2005. 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”.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.” “If I’m angry enough. if not.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. verbal aggression.” “When someone really irritates me.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.3. 1993. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Beck et al. Tanaka et al. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” “I get into fights more than most people. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.2. 3. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.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. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.2. I may tell them what I think of them. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.

88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. gender. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.71 to . 3. Boyd.91 for physical aggression. 5 = “all the time”).” “I want to get back at this person. Williams.2. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. 2000).5.” 3. derogation of others and revenge respectively.4).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.92. Shapiro. 1996).5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. with coefficient alpha values of . Cascardi & Pythress. Table 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 1997.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. 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. Three factors – physical aggression. age. 1997. 98 . . (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. Snyder et al.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.2.88 and . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.

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

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

2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.3: “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: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.Table 3.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .

1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12. the 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 H9.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11. the higher the BIT level H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).Table 3.1: The higher the Internality.

1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.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. When significant differences were observed.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. 103 .7. In the present research. hopelessness.Table 3. locus of control. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. In the present study.7.2: 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. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. 2000).2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. hopelessness. locus of control. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.

Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. 104 . the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. hopelessness. For instance. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. hopelessness. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. 3. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).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.3. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.7. Also. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.7. second. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). In the present research. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. if so. 3. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).7.

these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation.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. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model.7 Structural Equation Modelling. In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. 710). Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 .3. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. on the other hand. 3. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). using LISREL. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. That is. 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. logistic regression. SEM was carried out.7. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. In the present research.

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

the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. the ratio indicates a good fit. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 2006). (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).0.7. 3.validation index (ECVI). one incremental index.7. Hair et al. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3.7. pp. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).00 in which values greater than . 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). and a measure of parsimony fit. 1998.. an insignificant p-value is expected. the higher the probability associated with χ2.10 indicate poor fit. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. the normed fit index (NFI). However. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.1 Chi-Square (χ2). 1998).2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al.7. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. 3. Thus. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.7.7. 112). 2006).3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) This index measures the error of approximation in the population and to question “how well would the model. 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. 107 .

an RMR greater than .7. 108 .7.00. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. 3.00..00. Tanaka & Huba. 2006).4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. the normed fit index (NFI. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. Values range from zero to 1.00 being indicative of good fit.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. The index can range from zero to 1.7.00 with value more than .5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. Thus. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. with higher values indicating better fit. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. 3. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.7. Bentler & Bonnet. 3. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.00 with value closes to 1. The index ranges between zero and 1.7.7. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.

The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.7. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. Browne & Cudeck.00.7. It should be noted that.7. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. Mulaik & Brett. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit.7. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al.00. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 2006. 1994). A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another..8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. in this case. 750).3. 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. Like other parsimony fit indices. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. p. James. In such cases. 109 . 2006). means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. Values range between zero and 1. considering its fit relative to its complexity.. 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. The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. Although values range from zero to 1.

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

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

1 Description of the Samples Age.1 4.6% 15.1% 34.4% 269 27.6% 82 15.1: Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Malay Gender Male Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total Count % within Gender % of Total 148 33. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).4% 146 14.1.1% 536 100% 54.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .55).6% 12. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments. Table 4. Then.1% 121 22. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.5% 27.5% 57. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.5% 6. 4.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.1). with a mean age of 20. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.9% 14. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.4% 333 62. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.9% 23. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.3% 8.1% 562 57.13 years (SD = 1.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.9% Total 441 100% 45.

In Study 1C. Thus. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. 149 taxicab drivers participated. followed by Malay (27.53. In Study 1B. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26). In Study 2.35.25 years (SD = 1.43 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 25).68. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 113 . range from 18 to 29). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20.89 years (SD = 1.63. In Study 1A.5 per cent). range from 18 to 27). Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. with a mean age of 19.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.9 per cent). 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. with a mean age of 20. In Study 3. 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.01 years (SD = 1.

5 8.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.63 11.1 6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.35 1.2.5 114 .43 19.3 11. The mean age was 43.3: 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. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.3).1. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. Table 4.9 2.2: Age. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. Kuala Lumpur.25 43.01 20.7 4. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.53 1. 1. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.3% of the sample.89 20.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size .65.68 1.19 S.2 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Johor or Perak made up 53. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. SD = standard deviation 4. Table 4.D.19 years (SD = 11.4% of the sample. range from 23 to 73).

4 0.9% of the sample.8 9.5 1.4: 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 % 13.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.2 2.1. As the sample was 115 .9 7. Perak or Penang made up 50.6 100 4.0 10.4).1 9.4 4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. Table 4.2 17.9 0. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.1% of the sample.7 11.8 11.2 3.6 1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.7 100 4.6 2.5 14. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.1. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.7 3.8 5.0 7.

no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 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. 116 .intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.2 4. 2000). A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 1978). In the present research. 4.2. 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. 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. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.5).

749 .798 .784 .887 .824 .782 .718 .827 .720 .742 .890 .808 .817 .733 .881 α .783 .714 .910 .782 .702 .711 .738 .727 .715 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .830 .737 .730 .707 .741 .727 .808 .788 .906 .810 .781 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .774 .739 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .772 α .715 .735 .703 .747 .740 .754 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .756 .Table 4.720 .783 .811 .786 .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 .904 .734 .701 .740 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.

205). more than . Byrne. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.08 to . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. In Study 3. 1985). confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.953 . Table 4.807 .800 .811 . 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. 1998). with minimal error variance caused by wording. 118 .857 . 1998).903 .2.4.803 . depending on which is used (Byrne.808 Study 2 .804 Study 1C .802 4.876 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.804 . only Form A was used.958 .6.80 or above).10 indicate a mediocre fit. 1998.6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A . and those greater than . values ranging from .2.805 .807 Study 1B .916 .05 indicate good fit. RMSEA values less than .80. 1998). Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.804 .806 . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.801 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.929 .

070 .00 1.00 . indicating good fits.00 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .90. freeway urgency.098 . externally-focused frustration.000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .00 1.074 .000 .99 .00 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.000 . Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler. the higher the goodness-of-fit).90. A third statistic.054 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.024 .98 .061 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00.00 1. 1992).00 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.00 1.99 .048 .92 1.089 .96 .98 1.91 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.000 .000 .00 (the closer to 1.097 .00 .95 1.077 .98 . parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges. If the value of CFI exceeds .047 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .100.097 .96 1.91 .00 1.96 . As shown in Table 4.3.00 .2.000 .97 1.000 .00 .7: Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Behaviour In Traffic (BIT)  Usurpation of right-of-way  Freeway Urgency  Externally-Focused Frustration  Destination-Activity Orientation .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.98 1. it is possible to have negative GFI.92 .93 .97 .00 1.99 . and destination-activity orientation.00 1.97 1.96 .99 . 4.99 .92 .00 .7. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.000 .00 1.

063 .4.93 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.059 .98 .100.93 .93 . anger (ANG).93 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .92 .058 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.3. indicating good fits (See Table 4.2.085 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .00 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .2.000 .99 .96 .95 1.98 .95 .085 .92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).93 . verbal aggression (VER).8.073 .91 .95 .92 .030 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).071 .091 .083 .96 .96 .91 .052 . Table 4.99 .90. and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .97 .96 .3. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.93 .081 .91 .096 .081 .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).93 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.

9: Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1B RMSEA Study 1C CFI RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI GFI CFI Aggression (AQ)  Physical Aggression  Verbal Aggression  Anger  Hostility  Indirect Aggression .9). Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.070 .2.92 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.95 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .96 .94 .081 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.93 .047 .098 .98 .083 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .94 .97 .095 .98 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population). Table 4.95 .97 .073 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. and both GFI and CFI were more than . indicating good fit (see Table 4.97 .96 .089 .97 .096 .98 .98 .92 .3.098 . Table 4. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4. RMSEA values were less than .100.088 .97 .98 .98 .97 .98 .088 .100. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.058 .070 .055 .96 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.081 .97 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .90.97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .99 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 .(IND). derogation of others and revenge.98 .98 .90.98 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.090 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .10).025 .97 .

192) 1.064) 1.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.403(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.140) -. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) -. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.191) 1.280) .120) 1.064(.203(.226 (.297(.453(.179(.034 (.099) 1.280) -.091(.140) . In all cases.140) .246(.875(.297(.511(.085 (.099(.379(.280) -.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.183) 1.409(.105 (.099) 1.280) .280) .080(.280) .356 (.204(.094 (.195 (.085) 1.280) -.126(.331(.332 (.102) 1.280) -.183) 1.656(.409(.280) -.010 (.140) .278(.280) .052) 1.085 (.140) -.3 Normality.4.353(. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic (Standard (Standard Error) Error) Study 1A Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation 1.064(.408(.351 (.239 (.186) 1. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.280) .140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 . 2005.140) -.280) -.107 (.280) -.410(.091(.280) .11: Normality Tests.082 (.099(.190) 1.428) .091) 1.278(..920(. Table 4. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.085) 1.280) -.140) -.280) .582(.140) .140) -. Table 4.241(.962 (.179(.805(.05). Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .280) .560(.140) -.146(. 1997).107) 1.188(.280) . 2006).297 (.057) 1.140) -.560(.140) -.106) 1.140) .140) -.022 (.154(.280) .069) 1.323 (.260) .140) .192(.126(.719(.140) .037(.280) -.280) .140) .020 (.219 (..256 (.

629(.426) .210) .022 (.306) .417) .277(.153) .210) -.244(.469) 1.370(.138) 1.911 (305) 1.187) 1.306) .366(.962 (.198(.053(.098) 1.147(.102) .236(.062(.435) -.219) .270) 1.451(.306) -.160 (.153) .812(.435) -.973(306) .327 (.053(.360) .219) -.024 (.113 (.841(.435) .001 (.306) -.978(.852(.360) .153) .306) -.293 (.153) .153) .915(.276 (.195 (.360) .321) 1.210) .417) -.417) -.681(.147(.128) .100) .435) -.131(.247) 1.106(.266 (.805 (.219) .106 (.952(.153) .478(.300(.392(.219) .713(.338 (.979(.435) -.084) 1.435) -.219) -.120(.159(.11 (continued) KolmogorovSmirnov Z (Significance Level) Kurtosis Statistic (Standard Error) Skewness Statistic (Standard Error) Study 1C Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression HAT Physical Aggression Degrerotion Revenge 1.948(.324(.210) .306) -.417) .719(.223 (.209(.210) Study 2 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation Study 3 Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 123 .157) .306) .417) .138(.259) .962(.366) 1.417) -.153) .423(.104) 1.884(.142(.153) .265) 1.497(.130(.007(.317) 1.003 (.540(.153) -.414(.417) -.156(.128 (.359 (.306) .219) -.052) 1.219) .533) .051) .537(.510) 1.852(.030(.088 (.715(.913 (.306) -.986 (.375) 1.214) 1.640(.913(.972(.247) .847 (.359 (.279 (.110 (.503(.417) .098) 1.210) .567(.006(.360) -.417) -.256(.435) -.467(.064) 1.024 (.153) .463(.101) 1.940(.210) .210) -.567(.070 (.106(.057) 1.210) .186(.153) 983(.051) 1.306) .306) -.799(.443(.417) -.210) -.919 (.153) .135) 1.154) -.210) .022 (.501(.153) .807 (.264) .099) 1.011 (.362(.959 (.276(.435) -.417) -.048(.210) .822 (.Table 4.354 (.153) -.271(.994(.052) 1.219) .295(.417) -.153) .297 (.267) .

12. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.13). column b). 124 . However.12.12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. if so. Table 4.3 per cent being hospitalised. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. column c). For motorcycle drivers.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. with 44.4. injury occurrence was much higher. column a).

involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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.Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background.

proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.5 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. in Study 1B.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.5. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Table 4. However.4.16 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Also. Table 4. Study 1B. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 126 . and destination-activity orientation. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.05).15 shows means.17 shows means. Study 1C.05). All these correlations were significant (p<. crash occurrence and crash injury. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). standard deviations and relationships between distal.

391** -.416** 1 .78 .201** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .218** .476 .442 1 -.191** .345** 1 -.129* .716** .533** .69 24.147* .376** . 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.246** .52 34.280** .942** 1 .247** .278** .804** .5 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.544** -.749** .209** 1 .471** .381** .45 6.22 3.340** .316** .97 43.306** .152** .516** 1 -.435** .901** .405** .23 2.036 .44 4.231** .434** .513** .202** .88 7.Table 4.15: Means.388** .396** .155** .57 4.08 2.662** 1 .239** .818** 1 .96 19.027 1 .76 3.482** .00 165.D.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .339** .371** .211** .562** -.58 .64 7.04 26.342** -.2691 6.376** .3455 .553** -.566** 1 -.186** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .625** .147* -.

489**.254** .343** .400** .382** 1 -.324** .855** .401** .338** .518** .353** .312** 1 -.481** .587** 1 -.521** .45 5 87.842** 1 .254** .82 7 13.Table 4.414** .97 4 4.56 2 4.013 1 .159 -.418** .448** .669** 1 -.103 -.331** .051 .22 4.505** .167** .60 10 16.430** .099 .298** .697** 1 .153** .363** .50 5.200** .411** .341** .463** .496** .343** .847** .358** .408** .369** .089 -.542** .491** .347** 1 -.523** .355** .443** .355** .55 9 21.964** 1 .378** .48 5.275** .162** .86 6.157** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.00 14 19.172** .66 3.310** .213** .286* .236** .531** .176* .25 8 18.407** 1 -.440**.195** .380** .514** .380** .028 .003 .376** .240** .278** 1 -.276** .103 -.337** .779** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .150** .5 6 17.372** .69 8.173* . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.271** .41 3.268** .516** .515** .461** .335** .254** .445** .91 15 27.586** .067 -.178** .028 -.555** .213** .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 .225** .452** .071 .342** .386** .272** .D.444** .9 13 46.84 7.438** 1 .520** .355** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.762** .491** .763** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .319** .434** .48 3.43 12.039 .331** .85 9.140* .403** .5695 .816** .3079 .584** -.550** .509** .816** .14 4.148* .213** .53 19.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .540** .84 5.06 3 2.602** 1 .9 28.921** .16: Means.731** .147** .393** .334** .688**.279** .4624 1 -.366** .462** .4960 17 .294** 1 .172** .9 12 71.

166** .278** .183** .038 .218** .275** .357** .281** .259** .308** .390** .120 .368** .9 -.203** .345** .082 .67 7.212** .64 -.Table 4.291** .304** .270** .70 3.224**.354** 1 5 88.103** .109 .293** .228** .148** .11 12.343** .307**.18 -.298** .320** .245** .49 6.250** .530** .366** .311** .183** .38 5.150* .862** .095 .8 -.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 .412** .076 .196** .137* .230** .246** .81 5.895** 1 13 26.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .277** .119* 1 21 .268**.508** .221** .192** .304** .749** .241** .78 8.306** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.202** .70 8.340** .31 -.226** .98 4.278** .199** .86 -.422 -.534** 1 18 19.323** .235** .501 .150* .167** .230 .277** 1 8 19.518** .296** .192**.139** .338** .392** .454** .186** .270** .230** .379** .81 -.404** .446** .402** .456** .434** .483** .228** .423** .229** .101**.615** .448** .42 3.545** .385** .069 .348** 1 6 16.263** .424** 1 12 18.191** 1 3 .185** .373** .804** .58 9.91 -.131* .526** .189** .422** 1 9 22.079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .588** 1 14 20.288** .313** .174** .370** .178** .565** .7 -.183** .277**.03 -.506** .17 -.254** .641** 1 4 4.531** 1 10 16.9 -.745** 1 7 13.181** .216** .89 5.735** .377** .166** .302** .97 -.342** .110 .271** .592** .264** .484** .294** .258** .-181** .265** 1 19 25.516 .17 -.402** .241** .31 3.075 .364**.314** .292** .051 .292** .141* .05 -.162**.69 -.37 6.17: Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.235** .286** .095 .305** .03 5.003 .355** .016 .202** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.428** .219** .451** .367** .838** .343** .057 .151* .413** .296** .081 .222** .378** .364** .856** 1 17 43.80 17.476** .00 -.191** .747** .356** .210** .36 -.254** .85 19.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .725** .465** .033 .481** .401** .324** .296** .221** .502** .251** .281** .193**.109 .106 .261** .383** .209** .189** .306** .158** .151* .349** 1 16 67.199**.310** .52 7.7 28.D.224** .395** 1 11 65.210**.259** .130** .387** .275** .227** .70 1 2 4.252** .

4. Similar to observed results in study 1A.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. all BIT subscales. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. and destination-activity orientation. However. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.18 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. externally-focused frustration. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. 1B and 1C. 130 . freeway urgency. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.

025 -.418** .219** .18: Means.4683 .264** .291** .165 .371** -.043 .183* 1 .233** .167 .374** .240** .500** .50 73.413** .028 1 .290** .334** .750** .150 -. 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.758** 1 .376** .876** .428** .409** .367** .383** .580** 1 .413** 1 .325** .55 175.356** .226** .269** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .76 48.035 3.30 .081 8.179 7.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .614** .072 .485 11.14 27.192* -.48 5.795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .111 -.313** 1 .122 7.917 3.415** .317** .232** .212* .6803 .66 5.139 .941** 1 .630** .880 .4966 1 .201* .323 23.349** .D.Table 4.621 3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.259** .06 20.182* -.200* -.251** .562** 1 .66 1.535** 1 .5738 8.314** .

correlations between I and distal. 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. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. In general. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. standard deviations and relationships between distal. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. As indicated in Table 4. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. 1C and 2. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4.19. Differing from Studies 1A. 1B.5. 132 .19 shows means. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. In this study.4.

0301 .194* .622** .749** .149 .853** .604** .263** .84 2.82 11.12 4.222* .156 .072 .177 1 .45 19.020 .2000 .032 1 .109 -.225** .816** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .128 .156 .054 .234** .060 -.10 1.040 .197* .106 .08 15.171 .151 -.117 .148* .74 15.173* .521** .373** .116 .091 .141 .121 .3 6.401** -.150** .276** .103 .443** 1 .072 -.117 .271** .218* .454** .06 2.246** .275** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .121 .092** .528** 1 .338** 1 .167** .418** .286* 1 .149 .32 7.112 -.067 .404 .013 .721** .182* -.07 8.257** .114 .54 11.153** 1 .292** .17 20.4 5. 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 12.048 .071 .152 .05 3.255** .D.028 .039 .561** 1 .095 .658** .245** .161 -.51 3.178** .091 -.31 8.120 .371** .166 .023 .99 10.213** .872** .82 5.194* 1 .576** .061 .646** .236** .235** .235** .018 -.213** .643** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.324** .618** 1 .11 15.42 66.807** .180** .88 1 .43 8.268** .030 .13 3.254** -.060 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .200* .240** .147** .165 .023 -.117 .864** 1 .588** 1 .378** 1 .32 3.15 32.070 -.240** .193* -.636** .35 11.172** .204* .Table 4.261** .65 75.19: Means.025 -.289** 1 .229** .

Study 1B: B=. p<.01.146. p<. p<.04.01 Study 1B B=.117.278.01 B=. p<.172.041.01 Study 3 B=. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested. p<. Study 1C: B=.238. p<.315.3 inclusive. p<.01 B=.1.229.01 134 .1 through H1.01.102.4 was not supported.1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. 4.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.6.01 B=. p<.20).01 B=. These results supported H1. p<.080.063. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.095. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 Study 1C B=. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<.120. p<. p<.048. Study 2: B=.088 p<.125.01 B=. and externally-focused frustration. p<. p<.01 B=.1).135. p<.01).4.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.1. p<.095. p<.01 and Study 3: B=. freeway urgency. p<. H1.090.01 B=.034.202. p<. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. These results supported H1. For the destination-activity factor.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. but not destination-activity orientation.01 B=.063.01.180. 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=.1.01 B=.01 B=. Table 4. p<.

095.118. p<. These results supported H1. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.035.091. 135 . p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.069.01 B=. Table 4.01. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.22. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 Study 1C B=.165. p<. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=. respectively). p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.059. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.054.120. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=. p<. p<.035.019. p<.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.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01).01 B=. p<. freeway urgency.21).05 Study 1B B=. p<.074.6.01 B=. Study 1C: B=. p<. p<. p<.01.064.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. Study 1B: B=.24.075 p<.01 and Study 2: 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=.140.01 B=.038.23 and Table 4. Table 4.01 B=.158.033 p<.2.087.

88 28.48 171.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.41 167.98 33.60 185.35 24.35 4.25 25.31 161.32 147.64 26.77 165.23: 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<.29 21.56 175.50 28.68 26.52 25.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.01.44 178.06 19.35 155.35 33.43 20.22: 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<.16 3.73 170.89 21.77 8.92 157.82 33.64 27. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.184** 136 . * p<.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.30 22.05.98 171.25 5.Table 4.03 25.600** Table 4.32 28.82 168.15 161.

06 160.05).05. In Study 1C.88 167.05).00 16. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.12 154.25).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<. and those who almost never travelled (p<. In Study 1B.01). * p<.01). N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.53 17.81 167.00 14.77 16.01 14.060** In Study 1A. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.29 15. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.61 165.73 157. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.12 161. about once every two weeks (p<. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.Table 4.14 15.01).05) and about once every two weeks (p<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. 137 .39 19. On the other hand.73 24.05).06 8. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<. In Study 2.01).52 3. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01.

62 10.58 188.316 1.01.50 184.89 20. 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.31 78. However.71 168.74 77.05.Table 4. However. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.26 10.01.09 15.68 20. N.S) Therefore.47 5. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested. N.82 162.81 175. Table 4.05.37 9. * p<.920 (N.81 22.26: 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<.97 8.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.S.52 172.33 78.381 10.437 (N.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<.S. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.60 72.63 1.65 73.81 161.64 24.50 24. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.26). taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.94 20.31 2.56 3. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .528** In Study 3.80 22.55 73. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.753* 38 48 27 20 77.859 11.55 10.27 14. * p<. In other words.

Contrary to the subhypothesis. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. the lower was the total BIT score. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.been predicted by H2. In this case. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. only H2. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. only H2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. ethnicity and age – were investigated. In Studies 1A. 1B. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. For ethnicity. ANOVA results for age. 4. 1C and 2.27). 1B. 139 .1 and H2.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. however. In Study 3. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.1 was confirmed. Again.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. though. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. In Study 2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers.6.

05 F=11. male 140 . in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).562.99. N.S.62. t(250) = 2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.98.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. N. however.81.2 was confirmed.01 F=.00. Externality-Chance (C).9.1 and H3.53.44. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.68.01). In Study 3. p<. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. N. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). H3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. In Study 1A and Study 2. Study 2 t=3. 1C and Study 2.01 F=2. p<.01 F=1.05).Table 4. p<. p<. Study 1B t=2.01 F=19. In all studies.12. p<.74.05). Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.05. p<.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. In Study 1B.S. p<. p<. Therefore. In Study 1B.3 was not supported. 4. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.05 F=4. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.01 F=8.2 were confirmed.66.S. H3. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In Study 1C.S. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.01 F=9.01 F=1.56.6. Study 1C t=3. p<. N.05. N.

In Study 2.05 and p<. t(120) = 2. 1C. 299) = 5. p<. F(2. p<. 249) = 3. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.490.05).01). In Study 1C. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. p<. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. F(2. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.476. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.941. p<. F(2. 298) = 6.01). 298) = 3. E and P scores.05 and F(2.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.527. F(2. 119) = 5.05 and F(2. 299) = 3. In Study 1A. t(299) = 2.041.503. For Studies 1A. p<. 141 . p<.05. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.370. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. 298) = 3.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. 1B.01 respectively).05).566.01. p<. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.01 respectively. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05. In Study 1B. p<.462.05 respectively.05 respectively.

it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In Study 1. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. H4.3 were supported.3. Therefore. H4.2. 4. H5.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. 1B or 1C.079. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.01).2.3. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. 142 . H5.2. so H4. in Study 2. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.1. p<.Therefore.3. were supported. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.2 and H4. H4.3 was supported.05. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.1 and H5. that age influences hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.1.1. In addition. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.2 and H4.6. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.2. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. However. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3 were not supported.3. H4. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. t(120) = 2. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.

28). 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. p<. was not supported.01 and B = . Therefore.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.354. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.306.312.01 and B = .341.01. p<. H6. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. H6.1. p<.2 and H6. p<.3. H6.01. respectively). p<.342. 143 . with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. were supported.6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. were supported. respectively).186.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .254.4. 4. p<.254.3. In Study 2. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. that internality would influence hopelessness.01 and (B = . p<.01 and B = . but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .01 respectively).6.2 and H6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.371.239.1.01. In Study 1B. respectively). In Study 1C. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. H6. p<. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<.290.

In Study 1C.01). p<. p<.S.288. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.275. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration (B = .153.05).05).317. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.05 Study 2 B=. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.2. p<. p<. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H7.191.275.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=. B=.01 B=.200.01 B=.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .01). p<.151. p<.3 and H7.254.287.01). p<.05 B=. p<.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=. H7.232.4.280.151.349.01 B=.415. externally-focused frustration (B = .05).141. p<. p<.05 In Study 1A.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .415. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.287.01 B=. Therefore.01). p<. p<.01). the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .278. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05 B=. p<. p<.247.191. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. 144 .247. H7. p<. In Study 2.141. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2.232.05 Study 1C B=. p<.01 B=. p<.01 B=. N. freeway urgency (B = .01).254.01). In Study 1B. p<. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.157. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency. p<.151. p<.01 B=. freeway urgency (B = .Table 4.1. p<. 1C and 2.01 B=. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.099. p<. was supported in Studies 1A.153.317.01 B=.349.151.418. freeway urgency (B =.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .157.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .280.

339.01 B=. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).388. provided support for hypothesis H8.625. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. B=. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.01 B=.01 B=. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=-.3.315. p<.S. p<.29). N. H8.753.4.01 B=. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.1. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.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. With regard to H8. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. N. Therefore. p<.01 B=. but not H8.208. p<. that the higher the subscale score for I.1. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car. With regard to H8.006.01 B=-.077. p<. N.S.239. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.6. p<. where only H8.297.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. 145 .336. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.2. p<. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.05 B=.2. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.01 B=-.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.2 and H8.3. p<. p<.1. B=.1 and H8.S.01 B=-.01 B=. Table 4.044. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. p<.178.229.01 B=.168. p<. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.

p<.710. =8. In Study 1C.05.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. F=4.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.01 (see Figure 4.272.1). p<. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. p<. 146 . F=7.01 and F=8.01 respectively (see Figure 4.2). p<. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. Further.1).581.704. F=4. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.909.01 (see Figure 4. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high 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.

00 64.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. F=4. multiple regression showed mixed results. R2=. in Study 2.00 66.3). hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.033.00 MalaysianIndian 70. 147 .00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. However.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.05.034.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.6.05.00 68.327.00 62.444. 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 4.282. p<. 1B and 1C. First. p<. B = .

01. B = .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=. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.01.070.459.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .167.463. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4. R2=. p<. Kurtosis=-. 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. p<.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.608. F=18.371).4). Residuals Normality: Skewness=.

N. p<.S t=1. N.467.S. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. p<.05 Study 1C t=2.31).603. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.690.01. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<. were supported.30). p<. In Study 1C. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.603. p<. 1C and 3.05 respectively.01 t=2.01 t=-.1. t= . and H9.164. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.S t=2. however.2.677.780. and t(250) = 2.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2.820. t(300) = 2. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.01 (see table 4. the H9.01 t=4.05 t=4. p<. 249) = 5. p<. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores.032.Therefore.S t=2. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.690.521.480. p<.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. However. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. In Study 1B and Study 3.187. Table 4.6. F(2. In both studies. With motorcycle drivers. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<. p<. p<.210. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. 4.01 t=2. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . N.298. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. N.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.05 t=.

299) = 4. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.01). N. mixed results were found.01 F=. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. Table 4. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.804.01).automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.05.31: 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=2.521.05 Study 1C F=5.S. N. p<. F=2. p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.564.S.S. N.182.S. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F=2. In Study 3.526. p<. F(2.567. F=.01 Study 3 F=1.S. F=2. p<. N.632. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.041. F(2. N.57.432.01 F=2. F(2.021.01.S. In Study 1B.629. In Study 1C.S. N.S. 249) = 10. F=1. N.S F=10. N.561.01. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.01). F=1. N. F=4. N.155.763. p<. F=1.077.S. F=2. Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<. N. F=5.422. F=1. 299) = 5.S.041.S. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.S. N.432. N. mean IND scores of Malay. 150 .904. N.01). F=1.S.398. p<.

1. freeway urgency.Therefore. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. 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. were supported.3 and H11. externally-focused frustration. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. In Study 3. VER and IND subscale scores. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. Therefore. respectively. only H11. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.4. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. was supported. 151 . however.32).29). In Studies 1B and 1C.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. 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.2. H11. were all supported. freeway urgency. The higher the total aggression scores.3 and H11. H10. H10. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. H10. H11. 4.4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.

p<.229. B = . p<.540. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01 respectively. Study 2 and Study 3. Also.520. respectively.483.121.385.565.01 and B = . p<. p<. p<.01. p<.387. p<.01 respectively. B = .5).01 B=.01 and B = .01.370. N. their total BIT scores tend to be higher. but not in Study 3.505.01 B=. Similarly.01 B=. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.216. p<.01. p<. F=3.235. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. p<.S. the higher were total BIT scores.01 B=. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.380. p<. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<. p<. but not in Study 3. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 . B = .263.545.370.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.01 Study 3 B=. p<. B = . However.263. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.01 B=.183. p<. p<. p<. p<. 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.Table 4.204.01. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01. B=. p<.461. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<.05 B=. Study 1C and Study 3. p<.01 B=. 1B. p<. B = . and B = . 1C. N.01.05 B=.881.01 B=. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.438. Study 1C and Study 3.048. p<.S. B = .05 (see Figure 4.491. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. and 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.428.01 B=. respectively.324.

00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.271.00 IndianMalaysian 48. p<.01.05. 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.01. R2=. F=100.172.6. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. respectively. for Study 1B.100.12. F=81. R2=.6. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . p<.929.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.076.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. p<.00 46.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.516. Study 1C and Study 3. B=-. Kurtosis=-. The moderating effect of I was significant. p<.01.645. R2=. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.961. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.00 42.01.00 44. Kurtosis=-. In other words. and B=-.297.003.131.316. B=-.362.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.

R2=.069. p<. B = .271. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. 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=. R2=. F=71.704. R2=. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. R2=.01 and B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=-. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<.297.109.897. In Study 1B. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. p<.606.757.6. respectively). p<.431.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.01 respectively.6). This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Kurtosis=-. Kurtosis=.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -.015. R2=. F=78.369. F=91. p<.694.01.117.297.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.088.360. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . F=94.387. Kurtosis=.12.794.01.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.507.01.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.271. R2=. p<. respectively).

p<. that the internality.3.302.significant.01 respectively. H12.7). hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. This means that aggressive taxicab drivers with high scores on either the C or P locus of control dimensions did not differ greatly in total BIT scores from taxicab drivers with low scores on the C or P dimensions.1. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. and H12. and the moderation effect was not significant.2.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. p<. B = . This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 and B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. Therefore. H12. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .332.

Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. H122 and H12.01 but not on about the derogation of others.885.05. p<. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.05). p<. t(249)=2.737. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.01.263. Only H12.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts Male automobile drivers in Study 1C scored significantly higher total HAT scores than did female automobile drivers.01. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. and about revenge F(2.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported.3. Also. t(250) = 3.6.1. 4. 249) = 5.05. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. with the sample of taxicab drivers. 156 . male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.314. F(2. p<.279. p<.343. 248) = 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. 249) = 4.01). However. 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). p<. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.

192. B = . Therefore.1 and H13.01. was not supported.364.01 and B = .3. B = . 4. was partially supported.01. B = . and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.1. were supported.01.379. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H13.01. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores.277. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.01. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.413. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. the higher were total BIT scores.Therefore. p<.6. B = . H13. p<. p<. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.224. H14. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. B = . externally-focused frustration. p<. p<. p<. H14. This means that.01. on total BIT score were also tested. respectively. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.3. was supported.2 and H14. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. were supported. p<. the higher the total HAT scores. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. (that thoughts about physical aggression. B = .307. freeway urgency. p<.394. This means that.01 and destination-activity orientation.2. 157 .

002. R2=.6. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. F=55. In other words.-554. F=57. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. B = . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=.085).4.565.297.297.05.911.072). 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 4.809. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.013.01. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. R2=. Kurtosis=. Physical Aggression and Revenge.01. p<. 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.8). and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.188.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. 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.

F=59. 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.01. H15. 159 .092). B = . that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.1 and H15.294. were supported.2. However. was not supported.475.01. p<. Therefore. was supported.Aggression was significant. p<. p<.01. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.297. B = . R2=.246.026.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.207.33). H15. Kurtosis=. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.3.6. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.

S N.S.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.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S P.S N.S P.1.2.S S S S S N.S S S S S N.S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S 3 P.S 160 .S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S P.S 1C P.1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.S N.3.2.S N.S N.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.S S S S S S N.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S N.S N.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S P.2. S N.S S S N.S S S S P.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.Table 4.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S N.S S S N.S S S N.1.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S S N.S N.S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S S S N.1.S P.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S N.S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S P.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S S N.

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S N.S P.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S= Partially Supported.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S= Not Supported.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.Table 4.S N.S N.3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S 1B N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4. P.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S 2 N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S P.S N.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.S N.S S S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S P.S S S N.S STUDY 1C N.3.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S N.S N.S S S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S 161 .S N.S N.S N.S P.S S S S S P.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S S N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7. N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S P.S S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S 3 N.S N.

2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S S S S P.S S N.S= Partially Supported.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S 2 3 P.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. P. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S S N.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: 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.S 162 .3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=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.Table 4.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S N.S S S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S= Not Supported.S P. N.S S N.

38 100. F2. C.060 Note: Internality (I).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom.068 . AQ. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F2. F3.97 63. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.00000 . C. freeway urgency. 2002).97 . 163 . Hopelessness. Externality Powerful-Other (P).93 . BHS.05522 . P.96 . F3. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. BHS I.90 110. F4 F1. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. 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.00000 .80 104.f. F4 F1. F3. HAT I. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.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. (2) usurpation of right-of-way.093 . 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . P.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. HAT I. F2.087 . P.00111 .93 . F2. F2. AQ. BHS. e.102 . P. Hopelessness (BHS). AQ I. F3. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested.00000 .58 35.g.00126 . F2. Study 2: motorcycle driver.93 .96 RMSEA . Aggression (AQ).045 . 4. Table 4.34. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). C. P I. C. F4 χ2 49. C. HAT Proximal Factors F1.4. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). C.7. F4 F1. freeway urgency (F2). These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. F3 F1. F3. F4 F1. P.02 d. Externality Chance (C).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.

. RMSEA=.5. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. RMR=.51 and PGFI=. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.28 and .96. d. which are detailed in sect.f. Externality (Chance). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. but not as good as for C5.97. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.=33. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.043.92) on accident involvement.13. AGFI=.=24.045. An alternate model. .42. Externality (Powerful-Other).48. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. To aid this discussion. RMR=. RMSEA=.060. For Model C6. values were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other). For Model C5.91.23 respectively (see Figure 4.32.destination-activity orientation (F4).10). CFI=. ECVI=. . CFI=. with path coefficients = -. 164 . with path coefficients = -. C6. For Model C5.02.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. AGFI=.26.35. GFI=.29 and . subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.3. d.42. For Model C6. . retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.92) on accident involvement. and PGFI=. .94. 5.98).97.14. ECVI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. GFI=.10). of the BIT score.97.043. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.26. Externality (Chance).96. .f.

BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .045 RMR=. *p<. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* .92* Accident Involvement . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.79* .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.f =24 CFI=.58* .51* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.97 d.29* Aggression (AQ) .32* Externality (Chance) .97 GFI=.57* Injury Occurrence .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .99 P-value = .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .005522 N=252 RMSEA=.

Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.92* Accident Involvement .56* .98 P-value = .29* Aggression (AQ) .f =33 CFI=.63* .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .31* Externality (Chance) .96 d.77* .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. *p<.50* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.39* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .58* Injury Occurrence . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.060 RMR=.02 GFI=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.

41. HOS. IND. F2.081 .f.078.00000 GFI RMSEA .66 131. F3 F1. VER. Angry (ANG). HAT-P. Aggression (AQ).f. ANG. F3. HOS. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.00000 . IND. HAT-R PHY. VER. Verbal aggression (VER). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.In addition. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153.93 .084 . HAT-D. F3. IND PHY. 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). HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.92 .65 and . HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HAT-R PHY. ANG.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.66 153.80) on the accident involvement. F4 χ2 108. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. ANG.00000 . GFI=. HAT-D. HOS. HAT-P. freeway urgency (F2). F4 F1.91 .91.=61. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. IND. CFI=. HAT-D. ANG. F3 F1.66). ANG.94 169.00000 .084 . F2. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). Indirect aggression (IND). RMSEA=. IND.73 169. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . 167 .13 respectively.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). VER.10. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F2.41 d. HAT-D. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. d.91 . HAT-R PHY. path coefficients = . HAT-P. Hostility (HOS). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).080 .95). HAT-P. HOS.00111 .91 . F2. F2. F4 F1.35). F3.

BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.61* .f =61 CFI=.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .58* .078 RMR=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.000 N=252 RMSEA=.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.91 d.05 .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.66* .95 P-value = .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.83* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .63* Indirect Aggression .62* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .69* Anger . *p<.65* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .80* Accident Involvement .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.29* Hostility .72* .41 GFI=.

07580 . Hopelessness (BHS). BHS F1.95 . RMSEA=.12).f.33 33. F2. 169 . C. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29.=28.12 d.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3 F1.80 respectively (see Figure 4.047 . CFI=.058 .98).4. P.66) on the accident involvement. P. Externality Chance (C).06722 . C.65 and . Externality Powerful-Other (P).2 Study 2 In Study 2. F2.047.86 23 28 23 .94 .12. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. F2.36).7. F3. F4 39. p-value GFI RMSEA I.062 Note: Internality (I). P I. the participants were motorcycle drivers. C.94. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. freeway urgency (F2). path coefficients = -. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.94 . F4 F1. F3. BHS I. d. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.17631 .f. GFI=.

05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .89* .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .047 RMR=.70* BIT4 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.99 P-value = .78* .f =23 CFI=.95 d.57* Internality -.88* Crash Occurrence .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.65* Externality (Chance) .83* BIT3 .12 GFI=. *p<. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .

AQ F1. P.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. CFI=. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).061 Note: Internality (I). AQ F1. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. P.94 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.f. Internality and AQ.03084 .3 Study 3 In Study 3. 171 .027 I. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.20 respectively (see Figure 4. P Proximal Factors F1. F2.40) on the accident involvement. AQ F1.95. F3. C. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. F3.20 and . I.=21.37).95).061. Hopelessness (H). F3. Externality Chance (ExC). d. F2.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.06743 .7. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.93 . F2. the participants were taxi drivers.22 23 .39 21 .39. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. RMSEA=. but not Externality.4.95 .13).00524 . GFI=.f. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).97 . path coefficients = -. F4 50.35265 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.59 17 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. C. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). freeway urgency (F2). F3. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.079 Injury Occurrence I. C. F4 Crash Occurrence 18.82 28 . C. 37.

39* Internality -. *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .061 RMR=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.f =21 CFI=.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.63* BIT3 .20* Externality (Chance) .39 GFI=.95 P-value = .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.61* BIT4 .13 .95 d.74* -.06743 N=133 RMSEA=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.

4. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies.8. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Therefore.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. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. Table 4. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Step4=Significance level of the relationship between independent variable and dependent variable is reduced indicating a partial mediating effect – or – independent variable does have a significant effect on the dependent variable indicating a complete mediating effect. 4. 173 . 2 and 3 are satisfied. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.8. and. 4.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement.38). Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4.39). hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. consistent with path analysis results. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.

Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. Table 4. Table 4. where the 174 . behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.8.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.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 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.40).41).3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4. in Studies 1A.8.

BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. Table 4. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 . BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.

1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -4.01. Study 2: t(422)= 8.993. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Study 2: t(372)= -3. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.01.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Study 1A vs. Study 1A vs.837.01.665. Study 1C vs.442. p <. Study 2: t(422)= -2.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.426. p <. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I.01.9.01.663. Study 1B vs. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness.Table 4. p <. p <. p <. Study 1A vs. 176 . proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.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. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.162.01. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. Study 1C vs. p <.05. p <. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.

t(986)= 30. and to injury occurrence.01. Study 1C vs. p <. t(986)= 7. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.861.687. p <. Also.433. t(986)= 34.01.484. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. Study 1C vs.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.926. 177 . 4. Study 2: t(372)= -7.9.402. Study 2: t(422)= -6. Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1B vs. p <.01.01. p <. p <.01. Study 1B vs. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.704. and t(986)= 35. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 37.577. Study 2: t(421)= -7.801.01. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -6. t(253)= 8.01.9. t(986)= 3.01. respectively. 4.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.977. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. “freeway urgency”.614.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4.200. p <. t(986)= 5.01.261. Study 1A vs.186. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -8.747.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. p <.01.01.01.01.211.01. p <.775. t(253) = 2. Study 1A vs. p <. p <. p <.01. p <.837. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(372)= -5. p <.

01.01and to injury occurrence. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.737.01. t(253)= 35. Also.881. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. “freeway urgency”.01.946.01.977. t(253)= 39. respectively. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 8. t(253)= 11.016. p <. t(253)= 31.567.01. p <. and t(253)= 37.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. 178 . drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <. p <.982.01.

2002b). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics.4.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. They found gender. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. 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.1). 2. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. 1991). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. Elander et.2.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Evans.. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Elander et al. including gender. upon examination. al. Often. multi-factorial perspective. 1995. 1993. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. In an earlier study. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. (1993).

BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. As a result. In the contextual mediated model. In other words. except with taxicab drivers. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. is that factors interact with each other.total BIT score and component scores. hopelessness. All too often. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. BIT. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. though. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. In the present research. the proximal variable. 180 . for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. 1991). the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. But findings were more complex than that. Further. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. if different. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. 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

181

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

5.2

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

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

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

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

182

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

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

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

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

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

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

183

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

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

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

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

184

5.3 5.3.1

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

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

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

185

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

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

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

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

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

186

01years. respectively).53. SD=131.3.1. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. They were also more experienced (266. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. SD=11. In the present study. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads.16. SD=1. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. 5. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. For taxicab drivers.25 years. SD=1.5. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.7 months. SD=. there are other possible influences. and 36. SD=22. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. For taxicab drivers. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.hierarchy. as well.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. Of course. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. Inclán. By virtue of their age and occupation. Because of occupational demands.63.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.6 months as licensed drivers. 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.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.2 years. 20.1 months.

which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. 2005). in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. financial matters and social affiliations are made. 2003. The finding that Indian- 188 . corrupt practices. Devashayam. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. perhaps due as argued earlier. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. In an environment where career choice.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). along with selfpromotion skills. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. spousal selection. however. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. rife with bureaucracy. influence peddling and status-related privileges. when compared to Canadian students. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Carment (1974) also found. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. were necessary to succeed.

1981). The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. Nandy. 1999. Again. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). but two possible influences stand out. 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. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . by extension. 1999). have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 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. 1998. Sendut.5 million in 1991 to 11. Gomez. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55.5% annually from 9.7 in 1996.3. 5.3 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. where Cheung et al.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. Indeed. 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. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. as a result.8 million in 1996. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. 1966. an internal locus of control. as a group. and. Salih &Young. including locus of control. 2002.

there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . by the enraged driver. 2002. Miles & Johnson. 5. 318). more recently. bringing them closer together in outlook. The second factor toward reducing differences between ethnic groups may be related to government efforts promoting a multi-cultural scripting of the national identity (Bunnell. 2001. 2008. 2001) In the present research. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 2003.4 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. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Clayton. 2000. Jenkins.women’s friendship patterns. Hewstone and Ward (1985) showed that participants of Chinese descent in Singapore and Malaysia made about the same attributions about behaviour of Malay subjects as they did with regard to same-ethnicity subjects. Huff. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. King & Parker. Nonetheless. Parkinson. feeling more frustrated at external sources. Dukes. Oetting & Salvatore. Miller & Rodgers. Lawton & Nutter. Lynch. Consistently. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2002). aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. 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. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations.

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

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

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

2002. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Hinojosa. Performance (e. In fact. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort.Robbins.g. MartinLoeches. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. 1993). The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Dien. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. hostile automatic thoughts. 1999. p. Mercado & Tapia. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Making sense of. 1996. 162).. 2005). internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. Stein.5. 1997). As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. 2000. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Carretie. Lambie & Marcel. Martin. 2000.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. 5. 2002. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Tomkins.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. aggressive emotionality. Watson & Wan. Trabasso & Liwag. 2004. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. and attempting to exercise control over. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Taylor & Fragopanagos.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 .

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

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

1998). be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . Fit index values (e.g. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. At the same time. significant p-values can be expected. RMSEA lower than . Maruyama..08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. GFI. Md-Sidin. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. 2001. 2006). CFI. 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. Hair et al. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models.In the present research. It is argued here that.. Structural equation modelling should. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. Sambasivan & Ismail. we would argue. 5.90. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.5. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 2001. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. As a general rule. CFI and CFI) greater than . This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2006. 1998. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index.. 2000). the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.

provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit.1. However. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible.soundness. 158). two structural equation models. 4. In the case at hand. Thus. destination-activity orientation. statistical. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.9) included all four components of the BIT scale.7. and practical considerations (p. “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. There is some support for this position in the literature. stating that. 88). when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. 1C5 and 1C6. More importantly. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . Model 1C5 (see Figure 4. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4.10) excluded the fourth factor. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.3). In some cases. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. as suggested by Byrne (2001).

BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.060 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0.94 0.02 0. AQ.98 0.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.97 0. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.Table 5. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.99 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.045 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. 199 . P. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based.97 0.499 0. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 1.96 1. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.42 11. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 129.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. C.91 0.48 30. AQ.96 0. F2. Injury Occurrence 35. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.02 0.909 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. P.034 97.02 0. F2. C.

. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. 1995. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. while for Model 1C6. Schwebel. in this analysis.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. 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. based on the notion that each variable included may. Parker. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. in particular. Storey. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. Kayumov. For practical reasons. it is 0. 200 . Hair et al. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that.1). By selecting Model 1C5. they should be dropped. 2006). the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. et al. 1990. Reason.48. However. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. Nahn & Shapiro. farther along. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 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. Manstead & Stradling. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. but still acceptable. 1996). 2006. goodness-of-fit.42.

. externally-focused frustration. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. aggression. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. . Evans.6.35 and . aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .5. externalitychance.4.45). on crash outcomes. via BIT. externality-powerful other. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. externality-powerful other. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. The results suggested that the alternative model. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. and hostile automatic thoughts).34) and injury occurrence (r = .5. with five distal factors (internality.1).26. freeway urgency.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. In Study 1C. Rothengatter. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . Distal factors (locus of control: internality.21).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .28 respectively).35. Sümer.29).14.66). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.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. 2001. 2003). 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 201 .5. for automobile drivers sampled.g. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. externality-chance. . the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. crash occurrence (r = -. 1991.28 and .

5.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. 202 . Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models.41). Results indicated that the first alternative model.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.20) and injury occurrence (r = .65 and . externality-chance. freeway urgency. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = .24). had a better fit than other alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . on the other hand.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 5. crash occurrence (r = . Aggression.25). 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. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.23) and injury occurrence (r = . The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.4. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. which sampled motorcyclists. externally-focused frustration. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). crash occurrence (r = .55). freeway urgency. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. externally-focused frustration.

externally-focused frustration. with the sample of taxicab drivers. as a result. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. However. Finally. freeway urgency. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. Results indicated that the third alternative model.5. freeway urgency. 203 . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. externality-chance. had no significant effect on BIT scores. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. externality-chance.3).5. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct.20 and . The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. externality-powerful other and aggression).4. had a better fit than alternative models.6. their crash occurrence. via BIT. for the sample of taxicab drivers. aggression). the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externality-powerful other. hopelessness. in turn and indirectly. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. externally-focused frustration.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. 4. for crash outcomes. crash occurrence. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. 5.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. crash occurrence. with four distal factors (internality. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. such as internality. For motorcyclists. to measure outcome.5. Distal factors.

With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date.5. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp.6.6 5. 278279). Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. a total of five samples were taken. In the present research. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. 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. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were.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. To a large extent. chosen at random from taxi stands. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. Sekaran (2003) points out. however. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. 2004). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. 204 . four of which were comprised of students from a single university. Further. 2005. 2005). Huguenin. 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.

Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. Study 1C: 99.In Malaysia.31. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.2).55). making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. The most populous state.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. as elsewhere. Table 5. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years.2 compares the percentage of the national population located in each state and the percentage of the participants in the total sample coming from each state.6% (Study 1A: 99. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. with a mean age of 20.2%). contributed the largest proportion of the sample. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. 205 .2% and Study 2: 99. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Since. in Malaysia. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.6%. Sabah.13 years (SD = 1. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. Study 1B: 100%. Selangor. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia.

6 0. Not all states have the same number of drivers.500.2 3.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.0 4. Table 5.396.674 1.7 (14) But. In both cases.4 5.000 3.2 7.818. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.503.807 733.5 (8) 3.6 5.188 1. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.387.000 2.2: Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Selangor Sabah Johor Sarawak Perak Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Kedah Penang Pahang Terengganu Negeri Sembilan Malacca Perlis State Population (approx) 7.260.1 (7) 8.000 Per cent of national population 26.6 (10) 7.0 12.300.000 1. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.9 (9) 7.5 (4) 4. 206 .887.150.3 (12) 11.000 215.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.7 (2) 2. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.6 6.0 8.9 (3) 2.Table 5.286 1.2 (5) 0.8 (6) 6. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.6 2.004.576 2.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists. 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.100. in this case.9 9.000 1.2 (1) 3.8 6.2 11. For that reason.880 3.2 (11) 12.500 1.2 (13) 11.000 2. Table 5.200.

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 12.230 266.27 14.35 4.617 10.198 156.064 9.90 5.920 181.428.606 24.92 25.19 3.37 3.84 11.785 393.Table 5.041 92.13 6.561 1.137 698.490 525.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.725 70.19 4.735 165.251 324.75 4.88 2.98 0.68 7.46 8.63 207 .24 2.70 3.144 12.55 7.496 187.28 3.70 12.16 2.093 5.22 17.19 7.36 8.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.85 1.96 3.029 273.20 12.635 1.45 9.104 6.05 2.34 3.34 11.91 2.24 0.212 39.50 29.170 13.588.768 6.89 3.88 3.026 10.600 135.97 12.76 3.43 2.163 10.93 9.93 0.003 10.4 4.467 25.

221 36.49 0.64 1.92 25.112 347.38 4.989 6.45 2.35 4.63 11.768 6.64 2.212 39.38 0.88 2.93 7.288 444.Table 5.59 1.46 5.725 70.992 776.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.170 13.467 25.995 233.144 12.63 13.28 3.93 9.15 5.727 161.03 4.133 705.615.003 10.064 9.20 15.283 770.37 3.88 3.14 7.59 12.74 208 .22 3.33 4.27 14.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.43 2.49 12.79 13.856 310.46 14.679 90.10 9.656 821.02 7.66 11.561 1.026 10.606 24.98 0.722 255.4 4.48 1.75 5.104 6.36 8.617 10.02 10.958 % 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 12.305 276.82 9.76 3.029 273.

5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.4. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. 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.Table 5. Of course. was representative of a high risk driver population. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. participants came from – or. it is possible to say that sampling. Table 5.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes.824** . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .903** . at least.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . At least on these dimensions. it can be argued that they were. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.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) . 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.3 and 5.814** 1 .

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

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

and the hypothesis (H2. Second. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. 5. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1971). 1999). 2002). Mercer. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. individual standard. First. 1997. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. as well. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. 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 that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. Unfortunately. there is a certain imprecision to the measure.In the present research. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 .6.

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

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

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

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

for instance. Yet. 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. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. In this case. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. In 217 . 95-96). hopelessness. 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. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 304). This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology.3). In the present research. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). 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. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. 2. and if they are resultscentred (pp. who argued that.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress.

extraversion. 5.7. According to Ranney (1994).2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA).other studies. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. sensation seeking (Sümer. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. as defined by Grayson (1997). Kerlinger (2000) and others. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. not on everyday driving. for instance. crash-free driving.3. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes.4). it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. while still very much a model and not a theory. psychoticism. With several exceptions. conscientiousness. openness. anxiety. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. 2. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. The contextual mediated framework.. 2003). and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. 2005) were included as distal variables. much current research. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. While the present research 218 . depression. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.

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

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

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. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 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. 1957). These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. 1). education. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1957.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. 5.7. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 1961. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.4. At the same time. Slinn. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. World Health Organisation. for the last fifty years. teams of humans.4).5. or legal intervention. and machines are highly intricate (p.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.4.7. Unlike 100 years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. They also stated.7.5. legal measures change least often. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. 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. The bias of false consensus. Second. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. from the findings of the present research. 2007. p.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. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. such as visibility of enforcement. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. N6). however.4. 265). 1978. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. or an internal locus of control. was studied in a 230 . First. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. p. that “Of these three approaches. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. 1030). and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic.

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

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

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

as well as statistical grounds. the best fit usually implies the best model. Hoyt. the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. 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.. In the present research. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1982). although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule.. 1995. 1986. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 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. it is argued here. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. or external locus of control. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. 1973). like Brown and Noy (2004). that when faced with competing models in safety studies. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. 1987). Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . task capability (Fuller. 1974). However. Harrell. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. In most cases. and accident risk (e. Further. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. 2003).In the current literature. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. Montag & Comrey. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. This is Of the variables studied.g.

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

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

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

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

The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Barrett. T. (1991). 89-105. [27] Bakri Musa. P-E.S.M.M. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. and Biehl. R. 239 .A.V. 4(2). Accident Analysis and Prevention.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. In Trimpop. [28] Ballesteros. 231-234. R. (1986). and Carson. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. Human Performance. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.C. 14-29). [30] Barjonet.[22] Arthur. G. strategic and statistical considerations. 34. 279-284. Groningen. and Carbonell Vaya E. [24] Asian Development Bank (2005).bakrimusa. (Ed. (Eds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. GJ. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. [25] Austin. Retrieved April 4.31-42. [29] Barjonet. M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 51(6).. 2(4). 2007 from http://www. P. [23] Aschenbrenner.-E. R. and Alexander. 34. J. K. In Rothengatter. Boston: Kluwer. [31] Baron. and Tortosa. M. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. (2001).L... D. P. B. and Kenny.M. F. and Dischinger. (2002). (2005. (2002). October 18). (1997). (1998).F. (1994). W.D. [26] Aylott. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. 1173-1182. and Tortosa.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. R. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). P. NL: Styx. S. 21-30). F. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. (Eds. When hope becomes hopelessness.-E. Wilde. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. Manila: Philippines. In Barjonet.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1995). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (1939). [144] Farmer. 19-36.J. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. N22. (1984). E. L. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. M. 84). Herth. and Alpert. Traffic Safety and the Driver. [139] Evans. (2000)... Risk Analysis. 23(5). (1991). and Chambers. E. p.M. [148] Ferguson. [146] Farmer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1976). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education.G. 6(1). G. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. London: Medical Research Council.M.[138] Evans. Barnard. (1986). New York: McGraw Hill. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency.A. and Popovich. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. and Chambers.. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. K. American Journal of Public Health. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. The Star. (1929). B. 55).. Patterson. E. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.M.6bil losses yearly. S. 81-94. L. L. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. [142] Ey. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.000 and RM5.S. [147] Farran.A. L. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.G. [143] Farik Zolkepli (2007. 38). Klesges. 784-786. 86(6).G. 421-435. (1926). E. W. [141] Evans. [140] Evans. London: Medical Research Council. London: Medical Research Council. December 10). Hadley. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. E. [145] Farmer. 16. (1996). and Chambers. L. 250 . J. S. E. C. Journal of Behavioural Medicine..

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

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

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

[173]

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

[174]

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

[175]

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

[176]

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

[177]

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

[178]

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

[179]

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

[180]

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

[181]

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

253

[182]

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

[183]

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

[184]

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

[185]

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

[186]

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

[187]

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

[188]

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

[189]

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

[190]

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

[191]

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

[192]

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

254

[193]

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

[194]

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

[195]

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

[196]

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

[197]

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

[198]

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

[199]

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

[200]

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

[201]

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

[202]

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

[203]

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

255

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

[204]

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

[205]

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

[206]

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

[207]

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

[208]

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

[209]

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

[210]

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

[211]

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

[212]

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

[213]

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

256

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

[215]

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

[216]

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

[217]

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

[218]

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

[219]

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

[220]

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

[221]

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

[222]

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

[223]

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

[224]

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

257

[225]

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

[226]

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

[227]

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

[228]

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

[229]

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

[230]

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

[231]

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

[232]

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

[233]

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

[234]

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

[235]

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

258

[236]

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

[237]

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

[238]

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

[239]

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

[240]

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

[241]

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

[242]

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

[243]

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

[244]

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

[245]

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

[246]

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

259

[247]

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

[248]

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

[249]

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

[250]

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

[251]

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

[252]

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

[253]

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

[254]

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

[255]

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

[256]

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

260

[257]

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

[258]

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

[259]

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

[260]

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

[261]

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

[262]

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

[263]

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

[264]

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

[265]

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

261

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

psych. Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA www.ukans. Houston.edu/hope. 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. C. Crowson.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Snyder. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.R. 296 .

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

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

have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. How often do you travel on a motorcycle: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 9. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. some of the time ___ yes. When you want to use a car.8. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ 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. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. but no injuries? If yes.12. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. Within the last twelve months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . What is your gender? 16.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.