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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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

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

Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. significant direct effects on self-reported driving behaviour (BIT) were consistently observed with samples of automobile drivers and motorcyclists but not to the same degree among professional taxicab drivers. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. As reported in previous studies. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. 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. BIT. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. 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. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. The role of the proximal variable. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Among distal variables.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. As hypothesised. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. viii . as well. Results indicated that.

1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.3.2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.5 1.3.1 Accident Proneness 2.4 1.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2.4 Risk Theories 2.3.2 2.3.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.3 1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.3.1 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.3.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.2.3.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.3. Theories and Models 2.1.3.1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2.2 1.1 Concepts.4.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.3 ix .2.

6 2.3.4.3.1.5.1 3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.5.1 Experience 2.1 Age 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3 Ethnicity 2.2.1 Statistical Models 2.4.5.2.4 2.1 Locus of Control 2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.3.5.3 Psychological Variables 2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.3.9.5 2.4.3.2.2.2.5.2.5.2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.3.2 Demographic Variables: Age.5.1.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 2.4.1 Demographic Variables 2.6.3.2 Driver Characteristics 2.5.3.5.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .4 Hopelessness 3.1.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2.4.2.3.2.2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3.2 Gender 2.5.7.4.4.2.3.5.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.1.3.3.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.5.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.5.1.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.2 Process Models 2.3 Locus of Control 3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Hopelessness 2.2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.4.6.

4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.7.3 3.5.2.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.7.2.1 The Sample 3.2 Research Instruments 3.4 Study 2 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 3.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.7 3.2.7.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.6 3.5.6.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.7.3.5.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.2.7.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.5.7.5 3.7.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.7.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5.2.2.7.2.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.2 Study 1B 3.8 Crash Occurrence 3.6.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi . p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.7.7.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.5.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.1 Study 1A 3.5.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.3.7.2.7.4 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.2.7.7.7.2.3.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.7.7.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3.3 Study 1C 3.3.5.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.7.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.7.3.

5.3 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.2.2.6.2 4.3.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.3.6.1.1.6.6.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Age.2.6.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.1.6.2.6.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.6.6.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.2. Gender and Ethnicity 4.4 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.12.1 Results of Study 1 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.5 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.5.6.6.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.6 xii .6.1.2.15 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 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.6.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.5.12.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.6.6.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.6.

Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.3.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.4.7.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.6.3.5.8 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 5.3.7.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9.8.7.5.2 Study 2 4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.6.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.8.4 5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.5.4.5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.5 5.1 5.4.5.6 xiii .5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.8.6.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.4.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.1 Study 1C 4.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.7 4.6.9.8.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.

2 Engineering Interventions 5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.4.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .4.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4.7.7.7.6.3 Education 5.1 Theory vs.7.7.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7 5.3 Driver Selection.4.7.

8 111 121 121 122 4.1 2. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.4 3.2 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.7 4. Table Page 2.3 114 4.4 115 117 118 119 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.3 3.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.5 4.10 4.11 xv .1 3.3 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.2 3.LIST OF TABLES No.9 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.

20 134 4.17 129 4.14 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.16 128 4.27 4.22 136 4.26 138 139 144 145 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.29 xvi .4.18 131 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.25 138 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.12 4.13 4.24 137 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.21 135 4.19 133 4.28 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.23 136 4.

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 4.6 xvii .30 4.1 199 206 207 5.37 4.3 5.33 4.41 175 5.36 4.5 209 225 5.32 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 4.4 208 5.2 5.31 4.35 4.4.34 4.39 4.

9 59 2.7 2.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.2 147 148 4.6 2. 2000) Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptual of Locus of Control Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2) Research Model (Study 1B) Research Model (Study 1C) Research Model (Study 3) Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way Moderating Effect of BHS on the Internality-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance)-BIT Relationship 2.4 4. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.1 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.1 4.3 4.4 148 xviii . 1996.1 3. Hatakka. 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.2 2.4 2.2 3.3 2.3 3.

10 4.7 4.12 4.4.6 4.13 xix .8 4.9 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 4.5 4.

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

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

and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 21). describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. locus of control.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. McKenna. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. including the study of a large number of variables. 1989). behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight.112). A total of 10. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. “the literature on personality has a long history. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents.roadway. According to Dewar (2002b). 2 . There was a total of 341. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. 2004. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. However. The chapter 1. 2003). 2002.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.351. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. 1983). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. p. 2007). the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. 2005).790.332 drivers and 15.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a third model was constructed. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. in fact.are most important in predicting. In Study 2. After the initial model-building had been completed. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. Again. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. verbally administered psychometric instruments. 1. 9 . Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. 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. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. over the course of 30. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. In Study 3.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis.to 45-minute trips. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected.

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

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

1. in order of frequency.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. In newspaper reports.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 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. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “reckless”. 2007). Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. industrialisation and motorisation. “impatient”. A developing country in Southeast Asia. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. to a rapid increase 12 . as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2005). inconsiderate and aggressive. in aggregate. 2007). economic expansion. “patient”. 2007).000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. These are thought to have contributed. they indicated “angry”. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. Over 6. 2005). 1989). there were 341. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. “bullies” and “selfish”. 2006). pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 2005). “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “friendly”. Recently.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006.1 2. “laid-back” and “considerate”. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. 2003). “peaceful”. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2007). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.

& Wong.425 2003 6.304 in 1994 to 6. 2007).815 2005 328.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.415 52.012 19.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.000 vehicles in 2006.287 9.228 9. 2005). Table 2.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.2).417 47. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.200 9.552 37.653 2004 326.286 9. This suggests that studies.891 8.264 2006 341. 2005).218 2005 6.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.98 deaths per 10. In Malaysia.236 49. Table 2. from 189. 2003.091 37.20 deaths per 10. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Generally. Mohd Zulkiflee. Radin Umar. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. 2005).425 5. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10.7111 2003 298. Studies 13 .000 vehicles (Law.741 38. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.885 35.645 54.040 2004 6.287 in 2006. Abdul Rahman.395 2006 6.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. in Malaysia. 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. Subramaniam & Law. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. 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.

49 450 2.038 13.54 708 3.64 135 0.81 1.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.469 15.97 1. Morrison & Ryan. Palamara.110 10.37 337 1.99 164 0.48 105 0.29 2.22 150 0.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.90 159 0. 2005). Table 2. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.94 2.08 585 2.71 543 2. 2001). or about 2.315 17.025 9.08 541 2.26 463 2.15 572 2.11 2.92 2.56 3.47 280 1.08 2.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem. 2002.84 1.45 30 0.15 43 0.94 625 3.005 15. 2006).80 203 0.81 3.803 9.27 458 2.05 1.551 12.72 554 2.05 2.61 99 0.81 2.06 608 3.820 13.16 90 0.15 3.91 984 4.07 2. 2003).67 billion.448 17. 14 .05 2.85 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.10 3.94 1.85 147 0.216 10.378 11.967 100 19.341 12.049 15.21 3.416 6.31 3. 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.67 206 0.178 15. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.92 1.76 22.48 323 1.023 5.205 11.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.82 1.68 3. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. or an average of RM4.7 billion.034 4.07 2.50 979 4. and particularly among younger drivers.709 8.40 1.29 708 3.620 7. general insurers paid RM1.086 9.23 2.77 3.65 2.947 10.997 14.4 billion to RM5.41 302 1. 2001.65 121 0. It has been reported that.63 160 0.953 17.593 11.180 10.389 6.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.08 1.68 128 0.431 7.418 100 19.309 10. in 1999 alone.921 100 20.

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

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 . Generally. 2005). the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. Krishnan & Radin Umar.(Abdul Rahman et al. as compared with 1. 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. newspaper columnists. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. Researchers. though.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 2005). 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. 1997). how they think.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 2001. 2007). approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. for instance. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. is often mentioned as a factor. Who they are. unlike in other countries. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 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. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. In 2006. In a recent newspaper interview. given greater risks of accident. 2007).

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

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

1993. personality characteristics (Elander. Among engineering factors. etc. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. but rather 19 . 784). Human factors are far more important than engineering factors.2. This has included the examination of age and gender. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. 1993). 62). levels of driving experience and. 1991). Christ. by far. Åberg. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. Lajunen and Summala (1997) noted that traffic safety researchers have attempted to identify the relationships between drivers’ individual characteristics and their involvement in motor vehicle crashes. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. experiential. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. bad road conditions.2. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. particularly. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. Among human factors. West and French.2 2.

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

and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 2002. 482). Underwood & Milton. there has been an interest in driver personality. 2005). 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. the lack of replication of many studies. 2003). 1993).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 21 . 1996. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables.2. 2003). The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Wagenaar & van Koppen. Nevertheless. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. Preston & Harris. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. information processing.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. 1961. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology.2. 321). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 1997a). psychologists have given scant attention to this topic.

4). psychology.” (p.) 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. According to Rothengatter (2001).2. 2.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. 3). in a Spanish survey. eoncompassing engineering. anthropology and sociology. but that complex traffic 22 . in the field of traffic. Ochando. 246). ergonomics. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. medicine. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. Indeed. or the psychological support for intervention. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. transportation planning. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. 2002).654-655. traffic and transportation.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. To wit. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. or peculiar to.2.

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

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

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

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

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

just as one can meaure height. In 1917.152). the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. 1962. in certain cases. 1984). If each individual has a unique λ-value. 1993. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. 2. Research by board statisticians. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. According to Haight (2004). it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.3. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. p. sensori-motor skill. his or her accident proneness. personality. the average number of accidents. “irrespective of environment. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. weight and perhaps even intelligence. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. West & French. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity.3. 290). during and following the war years.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. p. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. 1920). but persists today. occupational and otherwise.finding. λ. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. found first that the frequency of accidents.

noting that. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. by devising clever tests. more probably psychological (p. in any sample. 1939) and many others. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. subjects reported significant. p. in a Finnish telephone survey. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 1997). with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. 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. in successive years. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. Farmer and Chambers (1926. however. 422). 195). perhaps physiological. produced a positive. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. 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. 2004). 294). as well. Scores on the λ dimension. Johnson (1946). A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 2004). made an assumption that.out what that value is. The accident-prone concept. 1929. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. “Because crashes are so infrequent. 1991. in traffic or when playing 29 . Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. but did not take into consideration whether. None of the experiments. inappropriate. Hale and Glendon (1987) concluded that the evidence for the transfer of accident liability differences across different work tasks or different working environments is quite weak so that accident proneness would appear to be largely task specific. 1956). replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. at home. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. inadequate or irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

at the same time. 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. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. 1996) Keskinen et al. a property absent within the task cube concept. (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.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. for example.1: Task Cube (from Summala. seemingly concurrently. but that is not 36 . criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. 15). Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc.

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

p. p. for the most part. 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.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. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. however. 1985. 1985. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour.6. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour.3. 2. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 2004. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Since 1985. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment.3. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA.Fuller’s theory has. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Generally. time pressure). 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Fishbein & Ajzen. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. 126). traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. 1991). (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. Two limitations have been noted. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . 40). According to the TRA. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. and Keskinen et al. institutions or issues (Chaplin. emotional state. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. objects.

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

A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes).. In one study. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. 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. 2003). on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. when intention is held constant. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. p. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. or sense of self-efficacy. 2002. greater perceived control (i. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. 40 . Further.e. 253).Behavioural beliefs and outcome evaluations Attitude toward the behaviour Normative beliefs and motivation to comply Subjective norm Intention Behaviour Control beliefs and perceived facilitation Perceived behavioural control Figure 2. Forward (2006) used semi-structured interviews to examine the degree to which beliefs differentiated between Swedish drivers who did or did not intend to speed in an urban area.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen. 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. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. 1989) Within the theory.

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

1997.locations and settings (e.g.4). Mahasakpan. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. Swaddiwudhipong. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Law. R. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy.2. the vehicle (V). Seow & Lim.2 Process Models 2. 1999). This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams..4.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H). however. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. 2000). Nguntra. the road (R) and the environment (E). E and especially H factors.4. Koonchote & Tantiratna. 2. 1994). Richardson & Downe. within specific situational contexts. 1997) 42 . More recently. 1998. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.

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

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

such that path c′ is zero. Figure 2. If. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). Partial mediation is the case in which the path from X to Y is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when M has been controlled (Kenny. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. In Figure 2. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. 2004). M. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 1986). for instance. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. Also termed intervening variables.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. 2003). called the outcome.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.6(i).2.2. moderating or mediating effects. 45 . process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. Tix and Barron. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y.4. 2006). 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.

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

2.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. more relevant to the model he proposed. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. he found that. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. dangerous drinking). He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. anger). errors).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. verbal aggression. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. In turn. psychoticism). anxiety. hostility. and non-professional students who were mostly students. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. However. hostility. Using structured equation modelling. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. given wide 47 .4. 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. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.

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

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

1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. uncertainty avoidance)  temperamental factors (e.8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe..5. Yet.5. 1997. Odero et al.g. 2003). 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. 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. they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear. 2007) 2. Weinstein & Solomon.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.Downe (2007).5 2..8).. Campbell & Williams. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Retting. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 .g. Williams & Shabanova.1. 2003. 2002. 1995). Type A. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Stanley & Burrows.3 Psychological Variables 2. 15). or externals .2. Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. and second. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed. 1990). Hyman.5.5. 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.. or internals.10). Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach.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. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Holder & Levi. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. she separated the externality dimension into two. 1975. 1991. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Lefcourt (1976) defined external control (E) as the perception that positive or negative events are unrelated to one’s own behaviour and thus are beyond personal control External people.5. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.1 Locus of Control 2. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.1.g. 1999). In contrast. 63 . Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.3. Levenson (1975. 2006. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.

Luckner.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. 1989.3.1. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 64 . luck.5. 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. 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. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. Sinha & Watson.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. According to Phares (1976).

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

In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. cognitive. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. Gidron. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. That is. offences. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. although internality was unrelated to DDB. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. Arthur et al. (p. In a much earlier study. 1260). an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. On the other hand. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. In an important study. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. They found that. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. 1989.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. age. gender. similarly. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. where Type A drivers were 4.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). In a correlational study of British drivers. (1998). did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. focused on the time urgency component 74 . Nabi et al. 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. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. was driving frequency. 1990). 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. Karlberg et al. however. socio-professional category. for instance. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. category of vehicle. driving style. studied police officers in Italy. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. Nabi. Chiron. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. West. 1979) and number of accidents. Zzanski & Rosenman. Raikkonen. but not with accident risk. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. In none of these studies. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. however. alcohol consumption. Consoli. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). Chastang. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students.

namely “externally-focused frustration”. Gender. ethnicity. At the same time. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. 2. 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). emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Glass. Of the four BIT factors. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. 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. 1977). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. on the other hand. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. Miles and Johnson (2003). In a subsequent study. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness.6. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. then use of the Type A/B 75 . The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS.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 studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. that are measured by the BIT scale. They argued that it would be preferable. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. although ethnicity. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. 13). Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. Specifically. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. In the present study. In neither of their studies. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. driving experience. 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. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. Similarly. including gender. hopelessness. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. locus of control. on the other hand. To the author’s knowledge. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. though. ethnicity. At the present time.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury.

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

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

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

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

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

(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.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. 3.2. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). hit or kill another individual.. frequent lane changing. characterised by excessive impatience. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit. not allowing others to merge or overtake. and. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles.g.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. 1998). (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. 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. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. the BIT score. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . competitiveness. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual.

urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. to the extent of inattention conditions. travel frequency.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash.2. 88 . the influence of driving experience.3.g. Then.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.2. In the resulting measure of this variable. 3. three demographic variables (driver age. In the resulting measure of this variable. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. in Study 1A. 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.them (e. (d) destination-activity orientation – defined as a preoccupation on the part of drivers with reaching their destinations on time and with the tasks to be performed there. while driving. and. Then. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3.

Finally. Then. the influence of driving characteristics. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. 3. the influence of driving characteristics. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. Figure 3.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control. 3.3. In Study 1B. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. In this study. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . three demographic variables (driver age.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. travel frequency. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Finally. Then. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.3 Study 1C In Study 1C.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. travel frequency. In this study. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. Then.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. three demographic variables (driver age. the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self-reported travel frequency were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Figure 3. Then.

Figure 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. and (b) taxi experience. the influence of experience. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. 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. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Finally.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. Figure 3. Then. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. 3. In Study 3.3. In Study 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. Figure 3.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. 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. 90 . the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 3.3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. First. Finally.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. Then. This was justified for three reasons. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.

2.1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations. 3.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.2.4: 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. Third.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 H1.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. 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. Second. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.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 H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.

2.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .1.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.Table 3.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3.

within a 14-month period.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: 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. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.Table 3.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.5. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. using the same procedures as in Study 1.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5 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.

Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items.. 3. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. In all cases.2. Stokols. For inclusion in the study. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). 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.5. during a point to point trip. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . by postal mail. in the case of Study 3 participants. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. Stokals & Campbell. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or.time when they travelled. Novaco. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. while participants were driving.g. 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. 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.2 Research Instruments 3.5. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. 1978). Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.

such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “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. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated .” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Freeway urgency 14 III.” II. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.2. as indicated in table 3. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Table 3. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.91) were found to be internally consistent. On each form. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. with a coefficient alpha of .80.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. I usually feel like pushing them off the road.” “On a clear highway. In a later study. to school or to an appointment with someone.

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

” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. verbal aggression.3). Table 3. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.5. 3. Of the 20 true-false statements. I may tell them what I think of them. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. I may mess up someone’s work.2. Tanaka et al.” 97 .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.3. if not. or 0.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.2.5.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future. 1974).” “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. 1996). of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.” “I get into fights more than most people. 1993. Durham.” “When someone really irritates me. if endorsed.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg.” “If I’m angry enough. and five subscales measure physical aggression. 2005. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. Beck et al. anger. 1982.” “When people annoy me. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”.

5.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 2000). 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.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. gender. with coefficient alpha values of . Snyder et al. 3.2.92. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of .91 for physical aggression. 1997. . High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. Table 3. Williams.” “I want to get back at this person.5. Three factors – physical aggression. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.88 and . Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. age. derogation of others and revenge respectively.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. Boyd. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 5 = “all the time”).5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 1997.71 to .4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.2. Shapiro. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.4). 98 . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.” 3. 1996). Cascardi & Pythress.

(c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. with an e-mail summary of results. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. After the briefing period. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. upon request. BHS. 99 . Study 1C: PIF. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale.3.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Levenson and BIT scale. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. BIT scale. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. In studies 1 and 2. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. Levenson. between the two forms of the BIT. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.6 3. BIT scale and AQ. Study 1B: PIF. BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. Levenson.6. AQ and HAT. in random order. BHS.

linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. The PIF was always administered first. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. Independent-sample t-tests. AQ and Levenson scales. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. Two to four times daily. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. 3. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. rel. BIT. 100 . For safety reasons. Levenson Locus of Control scale.2 Study 3 For study 3. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. At initial contact. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. analyses of variance (ANOVA).7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. 13. as well. 2002). data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. rel. 8.5.3. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area.0.5. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. aged 22 to 24 years. 2004). Data collection took place in taxicabs. four female final-year undergraduate students. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia.6. Over the course of the trip. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3.

2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.Table 3.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of 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 H6.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.3: “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 H3.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.

4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: The higher the Internality.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. 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: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8. the higher the BIT level H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.Table 3.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Ethnicity background 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.

In the present study.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. 3. 103 . hopelessness.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. locus of control. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. locus of control. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.7. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. When significant differences were observed.7. 2000).1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.3: 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. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. In the present research.Table 3.

3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables. 3. In the present research. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT).5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.7.7. hopelessness. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. if so. hopelessness. second. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. Also.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. For instance. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control.7. In the present research. 3.3. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. 104 .

Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. Hair et al (2006) has defined structural equation modelling (SEM) as a “multivariate technique combining aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression that enables the research to simultaneously examine a series of interrelated dependent relationships among the measured variables and latent constructs (variates). 710). Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.7 Structural Equation Modelling.7. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. 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.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. on the other hand. logistic regression.7. In the present research. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. That is. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. using LISREL. SEM was carried out. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables.3. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. 3. In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design.

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

the higher the probability associated with χ2. 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. one incremental index.0. 107 . an insignificant p-value is expected. 2006). an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 3. the ratio indicates a good fit.10 indicate poor fit.7.00 in which values greater than .validation index (ECVI). 2006).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. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that.7.7. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). 1998). However. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). 3. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 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.7.. Thus.1 Chi-Square (χ2). 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). 1998. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). and a measure of parsimony fit. Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI).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. pp. 112).7.

The index ranges between zero and 1. Values range from zero to 1. 2006).10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available.00 with value closes to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.7.00. Bentler & Bonnet..5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.00 being indicative of good fit. 108 .00. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. 3.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. The index can range from zero to 1. with higher values indicating better fit.7. Tanaka & Huba. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths. 3. an RMR greater than . Thus. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.7. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.7. the normed fit index (NFI.00.7.00 with value more than .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. 3.

750). Values range between zero and 1. 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. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. 3.7. Browne & Cudeck. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 1994). It should be noted that. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample..7.00.7. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix.00. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. 109 . 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models..3. Mulaik & Brett. considering its fit relative to its complexity. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. In such cases. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which. 2006. Although values range from zero to 1. 2006).7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. in this case. p. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. James. Like other parsimony fit indices.7. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al.

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

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

Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.13 years (SD = 1.5% 57.4% 269 27.5% 6. 4.1 Description of the Samples Age.9% 14. 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 4.1% 562 57.5% 27.9% Total 441 100% 45. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).6% 82 15. with a mean age of 20.1% 121 22.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Then.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.6% 12.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.6% 15. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.3% 8. Table 4.1% 536 100% 54. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.1 4.1).1.1% 34.9% 23. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.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.4% 333 62.55).4% 146 14. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.

with a mean age of 20. 113 .Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.5 per cent).25 years (SD = 1. In Study 2. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range of 18 to 26). Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57.89 years (SD = 1. In Study 1C.63.35. followed by Malay (27. In Study 3.68.9 per cent).5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 302 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. 149 taxicab drivers participated. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Thus. range from 18 to 25). 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. range from 18 to 27).53. In Study 1A. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4.01 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 29). with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 19. In Study 1B. with a mean age of 20.43 years (SD = 1. but 16 were excluded from the sample due to language and comprehension difficulties or because they chose to withdraw from data collection before all instruments had been administered.

SD = standard deviation 4.25 43.7 4.01 20. Johor or Perak made up 53.19 S.5 8.3% of the sample.35 1. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2: Age. Table 4.D.68 1.3: States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang N 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 % 12. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.3 11.43 19. Table 4.65. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Kuala Lumpur. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.89 20. 1.2 7.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.1.5 114 . The mean age was 43.9 2.63 11. range from 23 to 73).4% of the sample.3). 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis.1 6.2.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.53 1.19 years (SD = 11.

3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.2 2.9% of the sample.5 14.6 2.5 1.6 1.7 3.7 11. Perak or Penang made up 50.1% of the sample.8 5.8 11. Table 4.1. As the sample was 115 .0 7.4 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.4). Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2 3.0 10.9 0.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.4 0.1 9.7 100 4.4 4.6 100 4.2 17. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.8 9.9 7.1.4: 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. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.

In the present research. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha.2 4. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.1 Reliability and Validity Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha Cooper and Schindler (2000) claimed that reliability relates to the accuracy and precision of a measurement procedure. The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4. 116 . Neuman (2003) defined reliability is defined as “dependability or consistency” and further explained that reliability suggests that the same event is repeated or recurs under identical or very similar conditions. 4. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure.2. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.5).intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 2000). 1978).70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. A Cronbach’s Alpha of .

783 .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 .734 .714 .798 .904 .810 .783 .887 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .784 .910 .906 .718 .782 .827 .730 .786 .737 .715 .740 .881 α .782 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .727 .Table 4.754 .703 .824 .707 .774 .742 .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.817 .830 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .749 .808 .890 .811 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .788 .739 .738 .772 α .720 .808 .740 .781 .711 .701 .720 .747 .727 .741 .715 .733 .735 .702 .756 .

with minimal error variance caused by wording. only Form A was used. 1998). Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. depending on which is used (Byrne.929 . 1985).802 4.2.05 indicate good fit. 1998). 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.6. 1998. Byrne.807 Study 1B .4.958 .800 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. 118 .857 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. and those greater than .916 . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.2. RMSEA values less than .806 .805 .803 .804 Study 1C .811 .808 Study 2 .903 .876 .953 .2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.804 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.80.804 .801 . 1998). more than . 205).80 or above). 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. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. values ranging from .10 indicate a mediocre fit. Table 4. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.08 to . In Study 3. fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.807 .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 .

96 .99 .90. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.99 .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 .7.00.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.92 .00 .047 .00 .99 .000 .097 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .91 .00 1.074 .000 . indicating good fits. As shown in Table 4.7: 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 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.098 .070 .048 .92 1.00 1.98 1.97 1.000 .077 .024 .000 .00 1.00 .000 .00 1.92 . and destination-activity orientation.00 1.061 . If the value of CFI exceeds . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .93 .00 1.089 .00 .000 .90.097 .00 (the closer to 1. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.00 .97 1. Table 4.00 . it is possible to have negative GFI.3. 1992).98 1.91 . although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.98 .98 . 4.00 1.97 .00 1. the higher the goodness-of-fit).99 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. A third statistic.95 1.054 . externally-focused frustration. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.96 1.100. freeway urgency.96 .000 .2.96 .00 1.000 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.99 .

4. anger (ANG).97 .91 .00 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).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).081 .000 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.93 .91 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. and both GFI and CFI were more than .93 .98 .059 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY). verbal aggression (VER).085 .96 .071 .085 .95 .92 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.8.90.95 1. Table 4.93 .100.93 .99 .2.98 . RMSEA values were less than .3.058 .030 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.063 .99 .93 .3.083 .091 .96 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .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) .91 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.96 .92 .073 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.2. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.93 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).98 .97 .96 .096 .93 .052 .92 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control  Internality  Externality (Chance)  Externality (Powerful-Other) .95 .

93 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).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 .97 . RMSEA values were less than .083 .088 .98 .97 .96 .9).98 .081 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.97 .92 .081 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.098 . RMSEA values were less than .10).90. and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 .(IND). CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .98 .98 .073 .98 .096 .100.3.98 .90. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .99 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.95 . Table 4.098 .088 .2.96 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.100.92 .98 .090 . derogation of others and revenge.96 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.089 .095 .97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .92 .94 .94 .95 .070 .055 .98 . Table 4.97 .97 .97 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT)  Physical Aggression  Derogation of Others  Revenge GFI CFI .047 .025 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.97 .97 .070 .058 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .98 .

332 (.280) -. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.120) 1.099) 1.560(.126(.582(.280) -.4.297 (.010 (.186) 1.203(.140) -.226 (.239 (.091) 1.805(.453(.099(.280) -.140) .099(.037(.331(.280) .064(.140) -.082 (..052) 1.140) .183) 1.179(.280) .323 (.140) . Table 4.140) -.099) 1.256 (.085 (.428) .105 (.280) -.057) 1.140) -.05).280) .091(.020 (.351 (.920(.192(.140) .064(.11: Normality Tests.280) -.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.188(.183) 1. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al. 2006).219 (.034 (.408(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) -.107) 1.140) .140) -.280) .195 (.140) -.280) .656(.409(.3 Normality.962 (.140) -.379(.204(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.403(. 1997).280) .356 (.179(.409(.107 (.154(.102) 1.560(.140) .069) 1.085) 1.085) 1.192) 1.280) .094 (.091(.140) .297(. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.280) .875(.297(.280) -.140) .191) 1.241(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.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 .278(.146(.280) .278(.280) -.353(.260) .085 (.140) -. Table 4.140) -.280) -.022 (.280) .190) 1.140) -.410(.719(..126(.064) 1.106) 1.511(.280) .280) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.140) . In all cases. 2005.246(.080(.280) . 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.

540(.219) .306) -.214) 1.978(.366) 1.106 (.306) -.537(.295(.157) .812(.265) 1.317) 1.052) 1.098) 1.360) -.417) -.822 (.414(.629(.451(.236(.128 (.327 (.159(.153) .959 (.360) .847 (.497(.417) .052) 1.219) -.219) -.370(.259) .030(.841(.219) .102) .106(.852(.435) -.Table 4.417) -.435) -.279 (.510) 1.131(.306) .210) -.973(306) .297 (.001 (.417) -.210) .051) 1.138(.417) -.306) .360) .160 (.306) -.799(.359 (.135) 1.715(.435) -.306) -.153) -.153) -.104) 1.210) .153) .153) .426) .247) .913(.952(.962 (.567(.948(.153) .417) -.195 (.024 (.100) .366(.915(.913 (.022 (.443(.022 (.153) .300(.138) 1.153) .276 (.006(.153) .267) .266 (.270) 1.219) .324(.567(.210) .219) -.435) -.994(.972(.011 (.469) 1.354 (.306) .106(.187) 1.142(.113 (.423(.417) .979(.088 (.223 (.417) -.293 (.210) .110 (.392(.024 (.156(.306) .306) .007(.153) .713(.467(.153) .321) 1.417) -.276(.130(.186(.852(.940(.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 .064) 1.120(.435) -.154) -.501(.306) -.264) .128) .417) -.099) 1.209(.070 (.053(.219) .375) 1.101) 1.681(.051) .219) .271(.153) .807 (.533) .198(.435) -.640(.478(.003 (.210) .962(.210) -.884(.805 (.210) -.244(.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 1.153) 983(.098) 1.417) .986 (.911 (305) 1.153) .277(.719(.435) .062(.147(.210) .247) 1.362(.153) .338 (.360) .503(.210) .359 (.053(.417) .435) -.084) 1.919 (.210) .048(.306) -.147(.057) 1.256(.463(.

if so. injury occurrence was much higher.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.4.13). 124 . with 44. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. column b). column c). (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. Between 10 and 13 per cent of all automobile drivers in Study 1 sought medical treatment at a hospital in the preceding year as a result of motor vehicle crashes.12.4 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. For motorcycle drivers. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. column a).12. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4.3 per cent being hospitalised.12. However. Table 4.

involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.14) Regardless of ethnic background. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.Table 4. Table 4. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. 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.

standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.17 shows means. 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. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER).05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal.05). Most of these correlations were significant (p<. 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. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.4. Table 4. crash occurrence and crash injury. 126 .05). All these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4. Study 1C. Study 1B. freeway urgency. Also. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.5. in Study 1B. However. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation. externally-focused frustration. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.5 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.15 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A.16 shows means.

96 19.316** .58 .23 2.533** .278** .345** 1 -.01 level (2-tailed) 127 . 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.64 7.15: Means.818** 1 .036 .388** .942** 1 .08 2.381** .D.155** .442 1 -.391** -.52 34.Table 4.211** .553** -.2691 6.147* -.186** .434** .69 24.416** 1 .482** .147* .3455 .202** .435** .76 3.44 4.152** .625** .191** .566** 1 -.562** -.662** 1 .97 43.027 1 .201** .209** 1 .339** .239** .901** .5 5.371** .57 4.88 7.331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .78 .376** .280** .129* .218** .476 .396** .247** .804** .45 6.749** .716** .405** .471** .231** .544** -.306** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .04 26.516** 1 -.376** .340** .513** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.246** .22 3.342** -.00 165.

178** .84 5.324** .602** 1 .847** .355** .521** .157** .013 1 .97 4 4.523** .028 .16: Means.225** .55 9 21.172** .353** .153** .816** .275** .148* .855** .103 -.213** .067 -.438** 1 .403** .355** .531** .9 12 71.162** .254** .159 -.003 .669** 1 -.411** .366** .298** .82 7 13.378** .85 9.434** .06 3 2.5695 .41 3.294** 1 .380** .14 4.271** .48 5.150** .731** .272** .9 13 46.3079 .86 6.491** .089 -.91 15 27.586** .516** .167** .964** 1 .842** 1 .587** 1 -.66 3.039 .372** .254** .25 8 18.099 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.448** .43 12.341** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .376** .343** .382** 1 -.358** .331** .496** .380** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.550** .697** 1 .443** .369** .D.4960 17 .310** .342** .Table 4.462** .452** .240** .514** .195** .540** .418** .518** .4624 1 -.53 19.515** .286* .343** .347** 1 -.407** 1 -.276** .763** .268** .401** .071 .337** .414** .22 4.489**.408** .5 6 17.816** .051 .481** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .555** .688**.103 -.028 -.400** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.45 5 87.542** .461** .147** .762** .440**.509** .393** .338** .84 7.463** .363** .334** .9 28.278** 1 -.213** .921** .60 10 16.312** 1 -.520** .50 5.200** .319** .00 14 19.236** .445** .254** .355** .444** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .56 2 4.213** .335** .172** .386** .140* .176* .491** .584** -.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 .48 3.505** .430** .69 8.279** .779** 1 -.173* .331** .

52 7.481** .038 .219** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .174** .349** 1 16 67.251** .241** .81 -.305** .364** .Table 4.075 .86 -.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 .241** .89 5.18 -.095 .016 .057 .565** .506** .508** .78 8.323** .456** .306** .141* .166** .139** .082 .199**. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.454** .191** .292** .230 .296** .265** 1 19 25.270** .412** .531** 1 10 16.230** .193**.03 5.183** .210** .320** .483** .308** .379** .343** .592** .725** .120 .345** .275** .05 -.212** .11 12.804** .446** .357** .383** .302** .355** .70 3.401** .588** 1 14 20.270** .110 .178** .31 -.7 28.095 .235** .227** .340** .641** 1 4 4.210**.530** .422 -.465** .516 .348** 1 6 16.58 9.545** .081 .749** .534** 1 18 19.67 7.286** .258** .183** .196** .106 .230** .277** 1 8 19.298** .428** .158** .281** .-181** .224** .502** .8 -.413** .291** .304** .422** 1 9 22.00 -.226** .224**.268**.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .434** .7 -.033 .338** .277** .366** .390** .313** .246** .292** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .254** .189** .97 -.221** .9 -.745** 1 7 13.275** .501 .838** .294** .448** .281** .484** .137* .42 3.862** .342** .476** .229** .526** .70 1 2 4.404** .324** .370** .385** .311** .367** .451** .109 .356** .221** .387** .9 -.423** .304** .288** .202** .343** .166** .296** .615** .69 -.181** .186** .216** .354** 1 5 88.218** .38 5.228** .296** .191** 1 3 .130** .252** .103** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.162**.101**.277**.235** .189** .373** .250** .167** .259** .202** .131* .03 -.395** 1 11 65.70 8.91 -.151* .895** 1 13 26.49 6.069 .364**.003 .192** .37 6.735** .856** 1 17 43.076 .151* .307**. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.183** .264** .271** .402** .203** .263** .259** .424** 1 12 18.278** .17: Means.228** .392** .148** .245** .185** .306** .377** .85 19.192**.81 5.109 .261** .222** .64 -.209** .80 17.402** .119* 1 21 .518** .051 .254** .747** .378** .36 -.368** .278** .17 -.150* .310** .150* .98 4.D.293** .314** .17 -.31 3.199** .

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

028 1 .418** .323 23.219** .264** .043 .30 .941** 1 .535** 1 .200* -.182* -.01 level (2-tailed) 131 .917 3.233** .50 73.201* .880 .376** .269** .14 27.290** .325** .081 8.876** .580** 1 .259** .349** .630** .409** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .383** .183* 1 .06 20.485 11.167 .072 .614** .179 7.374** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .240** .122 7.415** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.334** .226** .139 .55 175.76 48.500** .367** .291** .Table 4.232** . 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.313** 1 .165 .371** -.4683 .48 5.18: Means.66 5.212* .314** .413** .413** 1 .6803 .035 3.251** .758** 1 .192* -.66 1.562** 1 .428** .150 -.317** .111 -.621 3.4966 1 .5738 8.D.025 -.750** .356** .

132 . Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. In this study.5. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.19. 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. correlations between I and distal.19 shows means. 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. Differing from Studies 1A. In general. 1B. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.4. However. As indicated in Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 1C and 2.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal.

05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .218* .373** .173* .749** .060 -.091 .807** .99 10.51 3.128 .072 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .194* 1 .275** .013 .643** .147** .117 .371** .234** .023 -.276** .254** -.067 .263** . Distal Variable 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 4 Total Aggression (AQ) 5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 7 Anger (ANG) 8 Hostility (HOS) 9 Indirect Aggression (IND) Proximal Variables 10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 11 Usurpation of right-of-way 12 Freeway Urgency 13 Externally-Focused Frustration 14 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 15 Crash Occurrence 16 Injury Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12.112 -.095 .071 .182* -.152 .378** 1 .286* 1 .177 1 .246** .151 -.114 .178** .4 5.092** .338** 1 .88 1 .05 3. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.0301 .200* .12 4.864** 1 .116 .023 .141 .32 7.292** .10 1.42 66.040 .401** -.120 .07 8.257** .229** .172** .528** 1 .2000 .165 .255** .721** .018 -.070 -.121 .19: Means.45 19.15 32.636** .324** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .245** .167** .289** 1 .156 .106 .853** .261** .872** .149 .06 2.150** .213** .235** .576** .072 -.443** 1 .236** .060 .121 .194* .74 15.404 .222* .84 2.166 .153** 1 .268** .622** .103 .048 .030 .D.3 6.Table 4.197* .054 .149 .561** 1 .54 11.65 75.025 -.156 .604** .039 .180** .82 5.35 11.17 20.171 .816** .32 3.08 15.43 8.213** .521** .061 .193* -.204* .13 3.020 .658** .588** 1 .646** .31 8.82 11.454** .11 15.235** .618** 1 .117 .117 .032 1 .271** .225** .109 -.240** .161 -.240** .418** .091 -.148* .028 .

These results supported H1.202.063.095. p<. p<.095. 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=.4 was not supported.146.102.01 Study 1B B=.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.048.088 p<. p<. p<.01 B=.063.01.180.01 B=. For the destination-activity factor.01 B=.01 B=.04.041.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.1. p<.01 B=.172.125. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.117. p<. p<. p<.01.1. p<. p<.01 B=.278.1.034.090. p<. p<.01).01 B=.01 B=. freeway urgency.01 B=. p<.1).1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First. p<.4. p<.135.6. Table 4. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 B=.1. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. Study 1B: B=.1 through H1.01 134 . and externally-focused frustration.01.20). p<. Study 2: B=. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.229.01 B=.01 B=. p<. Study 1C: B=. 4.01 and Study 3: B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<. H1.20: 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=.120.080.3 inclusive. but not destination-activity orientation. p<. p<.01 Study 3 B=. p<. These results supported H1.01 Study 1C B=.315.238.01 B=.

019. p<. Table 4. Table 4. p<.069.21: 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=.158. p<.095.059. p<. respectively).165.075 p<.01 B=.23 and Table 4.120.01 B=.01 B=. p<. Study 1B: B=.054.01 B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. These results supported H1.038. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.035.01.074.2.01 B=.087. p<.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.01 B=.01 and Study 2: B=.091.033 p<.22. freeway urgency.24. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=.01). When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.6.01 B=.01 B=. p<.064. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. p<. Study 1C: B=. p<.21).01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<. p<. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.035. 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=.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.118. 135 . p<.01 Study 1C B=.05 Study 1B B=.140.01. p<. p<.

29 21.82 33.41 167.600** Table 4.89 21.50 28.77 8.43 20.184** 136 .92 157.98 33.16 3.98 171.73 170.01. * p<.35 155.05.31 161.23: 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<.56 175.60 185.35 24.35 4.68 26.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.82 168.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.15 161.64 26.03 25.06 19.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.48 171.25 5.22: 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<.Table 4.77 165.52 25.32 147.25 25.88 28. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.64 27.32 28.30 22.35 33.44 178.

88 167.01). and those who almost never travelled (p<.Table 4.00 14. In Study 1B.06 8.01).345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. 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<. about once every two weeks (p<.52 3.12 154. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.00 16.29 15.01.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.05). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.01). On the other hand.25). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. 137 .05).73 157. * p<.14 15.12 161.73 24.77 16.53 17. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.01).05).01 14. In Study 1C. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.060** In Study 1A.39 19.24: 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<. In Study 2.05.06 160.81 167.61 165.01). post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.

81 175.381 10.89 20.09 15. However. * p<.81 22.25: 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<.31 2. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.55 10. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. N.31 78. 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.97 8.56 3.05. Table 4.S.71 168.01. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.920 (N.33 78.437 (N. N.50 24.82 162.58 188.528** In Study 3.05.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.52 172.S) Therefore. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.80 22.94 20.65 73.64 24.27 14.81 161.60 72.47 5.01. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.37 9. However.50 184.68 20.26 10.859 11.62 10. In other words.74 77. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .753* 38 48 27 20 77.63 1.55 73.S. * p<.316 1.Table 4.26).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<.

27). ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. only H2. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.6. In this case. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. though. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. 1B.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. the lower was the total BIT score. 1C and 2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. In Study 2. 1B.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. however. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. For ethnicity.been predicted by H2.1 and H2. In Studies 1A.2.1 was confirmed.2. ethnicity and age – were investigated. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. only H2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. Again. 4. In Study 3. 139 . in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. ANOVA results for age.

9. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). p<. however. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. N.98.S.Table 4.01 F=19. p<. In Study 1A and Study 2. In Study 1B.05.2 was confirmed.62.05.53. N. H3.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<.66.01). Therefore. p<.12. In Study 3.01 F=1. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.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.56. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. Externality-Chance (C). N. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. Study 2 t=3.00. p<. p<. H3. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.01 F=2.S. In Study 1C. In all studies.6. N.2 were confirmed.01 F=9.44. Study 1C t=3.05). t(250) = 2. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.3 was not supported. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.05).01 F=.01 F=1. p<. In Study 1B. male 140 . N. 1C and Study 2.68.81. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.S.562. p<. 4.S. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. p<.99. Study 1B t=2.05 F=4.74.1 and H3.05 F=11.01 F=8.

p<.05 respectively. 298) = 3.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. In Study 2. F(2.041. F(2. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. In Study 1A. p<.05). p<. 1C. In Study 1B.05 respectively.503. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<.05). all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 298) = 6. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.566. p<. 1B. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.05.01 respectively. E and P scores. F(2. p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.05 and F(2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. p<. 119) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. F(2. p<.370.527. 249) = 3. 298) = 3. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. F(2.941.05 and F(2.462.476.01).01). 299) = 5.05. t(299) = 2. t(120) = 2. For Studies 1A. 141 . 299) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.490.05 and p<.01 respectively).01. In Study 1C.

079.05. H4. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.1. in Study 2. 1B or 1C. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.3 were not supported.3 was supported. 4. In Study 1. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. 142 .1.1. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. H5. H4. H4.3.3.2 and H4.2. so H4. In addition. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. that age influences hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.Therefore. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. H4. p<. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. t(120) = 2. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.3 were supported. However.3.2. were supported.3.6. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.2 and H4.2.1 and H5. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.01). H5. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. Therefore.

that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.290. respectively). H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.312. respectively). In Study 1C. were supported.186.2 and H6. p<.239.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . were supported.371. p<. 143 . p<. respectively). internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.3.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 respectively).306.2 and H6.1. p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. Therefore. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<.01 and B = . H6. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<. p<.1.01. In Study 1B.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4.4. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.6.01 and (B = . In Study 2.254.341.01 and B = . was not supported.3. that internality would influence hopelessness.01.01.254. 4. H6.354. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . p<. H6. p<.01 and B = .342.28).6.

N. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.153. p<.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .01).01 B=.275.05 Study 1C B=. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.247.01). p<. p<.1.01 B=. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<.01 B=. p<.232. p<.317.05). 1C and 2.2. p<. H7. p<.05). p<.415.01 B=. In Study 2. p<. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.232.254. B=.01 B=.317.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05 In Study 1A. externally-focused frustration (B = .278.287. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. p<.01).099. In Study 1C.141.415. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. In Study 1B. externally-focused frustration (B = . the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.288.151.349. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.191.151.4.05 B=.153.157.287. 144 . externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency.151.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.05 Study 2 B=.01 B=.01 B=. p<.151. Therefore. p<.Table 4.01).01).S.157. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<. was supported in Studies 1A.200.05). H7.254.247. p<. p<.418.01).191. freeway urgency (B = .05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. p<.275.3 and H7.01 B=.141. freeway urgency (B = .01 B=.01). p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. freeway urgency (B =.280.01 Study 1B B=.01 B=. p<.349.05 B=.280. H7.01 B=.

01 B=-. Therefore.315. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.336. With regard to H8. B=. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.01 B=.01 B=.29).753. p<.2.4. p<.1.229.625. H8.1.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.2. p<. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were 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. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. H8. N. but not H8. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). N. that the higher the subscale score for I.2 and H8. N.168. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. With regard to H8. the lower were mean total BIT scores.01 B=. p<.01 B=-.208.388. p<.339. provided support for hypothesis H8.297. Table 4.01 B=. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.01 B=.S. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.239. where only H8.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. p<.3.05 B=. p<.01 B=-.178.01 B=.01 B=.1 and H8. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.1.S. p<. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.6.006.01 B=-.3. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. p<. 145 . H8. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. p<.077.044.

Further.909. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. 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. p<.704.05.2). p<.1).01 (see Figure 4. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. =8. F=4.710. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. 146 . p<.01 respectively (see Figure 4. F=7. p<.01 (see Figure 4.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.272. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. F=4.01 and F=8. p<.581.1).1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. In Study 1C.

05.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. multiple regression showed mixed results. 1B and 1C.00 64. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.00 68.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. However.3).034.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.033.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.00 66. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4.00 62.444. F=4. p<.327. B = . in Study 2.05. R2=. p<.00 MalaysianIndian 70. Kurtosis=-. First. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.282. 147 . 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 4.6.

F=18. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.371). 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. 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=.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. p<.463.070. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.4). Kurtosis=-.459. p<.01.167. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. R2=.608.01.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .

N.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.6.164.298. the H9. In Study 1C.780. t= .01 (see table 4. 1C and 3.480.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.S. N. and t(250) = 2. p<.S t=1.05 t=. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.603.01 t=-.01 t=4. p<. Table 4. p<.S t=2. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . p<.2.1. In Study 1B and Study 3.01 t=2. 4. N.01. N.467. p<. p<.187. t(300) = 2. p<.01 t=2.S t=2.521. In both studies.820.677. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.690. With motorcycle drivers.05 Study 1C t=2.210. p<.603. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.05 respectively. F(2. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<. were supported. and H9. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.05 t=4. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. p<.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=2.31). However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. however. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. 249) = 5.30).032. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.690.Therefore. p<.

S. N. p<. mean IND scores of Malay. N. 299) = 5. F=4.521. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. F=1.763. F=2.S.041. 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. F=1.01).01. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.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.S. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay. Table 4. F=1. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. N.561.041.155. N.S F=10. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. F=1.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. N.904.S. p<. N. F(2.398. F=2. p<.01.S.S.S. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01). 249) = 10.077.S.422.567. N. F=5.57. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 1C.021. In Study 1B. 299) = 4.S. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<. F(2. In Study 3. F=2.S.S. p<.01).526.432. F=1. N.01). F=.629. N. F=2.182.01 F=2.432. N.05. p<. mixed results were found.804.S. p<.05 Study 1C F=5.632. N.S. N.564. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.01 F=. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. 150 . N.01 Study 3 F=1. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.

freeway urgency. H11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. H10. 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. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. were all supported.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported.2. externally-focused frustration.4. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. The higher the total aggression scores.1.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. VER and IND subscale scores.3 and H11. In Studies 1B and 1C. freeway urgency. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. only H11.6.3 and H11.Therefore. H11. H10. was supported. H10. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. H11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.4. respectively. Therefore. were supported. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. 4. however. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. In Study 3. 151 . 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.29).32). total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher.

it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<. B = . their total BIT scores tend to be higher. p<.01 B=. B = . the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.881. N. and B = .263. Study 2 and Study 3. p<. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01 B=. p<. Study 1C and Study 3.380. p<. N. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B. p<.263. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. but not in Study 3.01 B=.01 B=. p<.370. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.540. p<.204.048. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. p<. B = . p<.01. p<. Similarly. p<.Table 4. 1B. p<.S. respectively.01 B=.545. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 respectively.01.385.01 respectively.05 (see Figure 4. p<.01 B=. p<.01 and B = . but not in Study 3. the higher were total BIT scores. B=.216. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. B = .01 B=. p<.483. 1C. p<. F=3. 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.324. p<.387.565.01.01 B=. B = . p<. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01. Study 1C and Study 3.01. p<. p<.01. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.428.461.370.01 B=.S.01 and B = .05 B=. and B = .438. p<.01 Study 3 B=.183. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.01 Study 1C B=.505.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.520.235.491. p<.121. B = .05 B=. respectively. p<. Also.229.5). However.

Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. respectively.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. F=81. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.297.131.929. R2=.01.05.645.6. p<.172.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.003. Study 1C and Study 3.01.00 IndianMalaysian 48. R2=. p<. B=-.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. for Study 1B. F=100.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. p<.00 42. p<.00 44. 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. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. Kurtosis=-. In other words.516.362.6. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.271. B=-. and B=-.00 46. p<.100.076.316. R2=. The moderating effect of I was significant.12. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.961.01.

01. p<. Kurtosis=-.6). Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<.069.271. B = .704. respectively).01 respectively.794.6.088. F=71. F=91. p<.015. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.757. Kurtosis=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.271. R2=.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.117.431. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant. p<.01. R2=.297.897.360. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.109. respectively).015. Kurtosis=-. F=94. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 . R2=.606. R2=.369. In Study 1B. p<. F=78.12. R2=. R2=.01.507. 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=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B.01. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.297.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.387.694.01 and B = .

Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.332.01 and B = . B = . externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. that the internality. H12. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models.01 respectively. and the moderation effect was not significant.1.3. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. p<. and H12.2. p<. H12. 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. 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 4.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. Therefore.7).significant.302.

ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores.05). male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. F(2.1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. and about revenge F(2.263. 249) = 4.01.279.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. 248) = 3. Only H12.01. Also. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 156 . Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.314. p<. p<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.737. However.343. 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<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.6. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2.3. 249) = 5. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales. p<. t(249)=2.13 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. t(250) = 3. 4.05).05. H122 and H12. p<.885. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.05.01).01 but not on about the derogation of others. p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.

379.364.6.3. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. p<.01 and B = .01. was supported.394.01 and destination-activity orientation. (that thoughts about physical aggression. externally-focused frustration. This means that. B = . the higher were total BIT scores. was not supported.01. were supported. p<. freeway urgency.2. B = . H13.01. p<. respectively.3. p<. the higher the total HAT scores.01. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. B = .224. were supported. p<. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. This means that. 157 . derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. B = . p<. p<. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.1. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. H14. p<. with the sample of automobile drivers studied.277.2 and H14. H13.01.307.01. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. H14. on total BIT score were also tested. B = .1 and H13. was partially supported. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. Therefore.Therefore. B = . 4.413. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.192.

Physical Aggression and Revenge. In other words.4.085).-554.188. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . R2=. F=55.8).002.01. B = .072). 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.013. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.01.565. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.297.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.809. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Kurtosis=. Kurtosis=. R2=. p<. F=57.911. 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 4.6. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.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.05. p<.297.

was supported.33). H15.Aggression was significant.246.2. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. B = . were supported. p<. 159 . Kurtosis=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15. p<.3.01.01. Therefore. However.6. 4.297. was not supported. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. F=59. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. R2=.01.207.092).294. H15.026.475. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.1 and H15. p<. B = .

S N.Table 4.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S N.3.S N.2.2.1.S N.S S S S S N.S S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.S P.S P. S N.1.S N.S N.S N.S S S N.S P.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.S N.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S 1C P.S S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S P.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.1.S N.S P.S N.S N.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.S S N.1.S S S S S N.S P.S S S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S S S P.2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.S 3 P.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S S S N.S N.1.S S S N.S S S S S S N.S N.S P.S 160 .S S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S N.

S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S 3 N.S P.S N.S 1B N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10. P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S S N.S N.S S S S S P.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.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 S N.S N.S P.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S N.S= Not Supported.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S STUDY 1C N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.Table 4.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S S S N.S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S P.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S S P.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.3.S 2 N.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S P.S N.S N. N.S P.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S S S N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S 161 .S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S N.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.

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

F3.96 .90 110. P. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.00000 .087 . F2. P. C. F4 F1. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. Table 4. F2. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).060 Note: Internality (I). two were worthy of further examination. F3.00000 .97 63.38 100. freeway urgency (F2). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3 F1. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). AQ.93 .96 RMSEA . P I. Hopelessness (BHS). F3. F4 χ2 49. F4 F1. 4. freeway urgency.34. F2. BHS. F2.g.93 . (2) usurpation of right-of-way.045 .7. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . Externality Chance (C).00111 . F4 F1. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. C. AQ.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. 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.00126 .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. F4 F1. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. F3. P.58 35. P. P. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. F3. Hopelessness.093 . e. Study 2: motorcycle driver. 2002). F2. HAT Proximal Factors F1. Externality Powerful-Other (P). C.4. C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.02 d. HAT I. HAT I.102 . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. F2. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4.068 .80 104. C.00000 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.f. 163 .97 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. Aggression (AQ).52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. C. AQ I. BHS.05522 . BHS I.93 . AQ.

26. with path coefficients = -.destination-activity orientation (F4). but not as good as for C5.96.22 respectively (see Figure 4. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. To aid this discussion. C6.28 and . with path coefficients = -.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.97. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. RMSEA=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.91.3.060. RMSEA=. RMR=. of the BIT score.045.98). . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. . . GFI=. ECVI=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.043.10). d. For Model C5.13. Externality (Chance).f. For Model C5. CFI=. For Model C6.=24. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.96. ECVI=. GFI=.f. RMR=.10).5. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. Externality (Powerful-Other). Externality (Powerful-Other). 164 .=33.29 and .97. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. 5.02.043. d.42.92) on accident involvement. and PGFI=.51 and PGFI=.48.23 respectively (see Figure 4. which are detailed in sect. For Model C6. . Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.26. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.14. Externality (Chance). CFI=. An alternate model.35. values were: NFI=. .97. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.94.92) on accident involvement.42.32. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. AGFI=. AGFI=. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.

f =24 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.92* Accident Involvement .51* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .58* .63* .97 GFI=.79* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .57* Injury Occurrence .97 d.32* Externality (Chance) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .005522 N=252 RMSEA=. *p<.29* Aggression (AQ) .99 P-value = .045 RMR=.

05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . *p<.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.92* Accident Involvement .77* .29* Aggression (AQ) .56* . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.50* .96 d.02 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.63* .060 RMR=.58* Injury Occurrence .31* Externality (Chance) .f =33 CFI=.39* .98 P-value = .

Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).41. Indirect aggression (IND).10.95). Verbal aggression (VER).66 153. F4 F1. d. HAT-R PHY. VER.35). VER. F4 F1.65 and .00111 .084 .078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.00000 . ANG. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .00000 GFI RMSEA . IND PHY. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D).078. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). F3.080 . ANG. IND. F4 χ2 108.94 169. VER. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. HOS. HOS. HAT-P. F2. F3 F1. HOS. F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F3. IND. IND.41 d. F2. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.91 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. HAT-D. CFI=. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C.=61. 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). 167 . F2. Aggression (AQ).93 .084 .f. GFI=. ANG.00000 . F3 F1. freeway urgency (F2).73 169. Hostility (HOS).35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.91. RMSEA=. HAT-D. path coefficients = . externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. HAT-R PHY.92 . HOS.66).91 .00000 .66 131.In addition.91 . HAT-P.081 . HAT-R PHY.13 respectively. ANG. F3. HAT-D. HAT-P. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. ANG. F2. HOS.80) on the accident involvement.f. IND. HAT-P. Angry (ANG). HAT-D.

66* .05 .29* Hostility .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .62* . *p<.58* .f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .69* Anger .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.80* Accident Involvement .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .078 RMR=.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .61* .83* .91 d.63* Indirect Aggression .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 P-value = . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.72* .41 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* .

F2.12). the participants were motorcycle drivers. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. P I.65 and . Externality Powerful-Other (P).98). freeway urgency (F2).06722 .95 .12. Hopelessness (BHS). BHS F1.86 23 28 23 . F4 39.07580 .94 .047.2 Study 2 In Study 2. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.7. CFI=.f.33 33. F3. C. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Externality Chance (C).36). the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.047 .80 respectively (see Figure 4. F3 F1.94 .062 Note: Internality (I). P. P.66) on the accident involvement.94. C. BHS I.=28. GFI=.12 d. path coefficients = -. F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. p-value GFI RMSEA I.f. F3. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F4 F1.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F2.058 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29. RMSEA=.17631 . d.4. C. 169 . Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).

78* .88* Crash Occurrence .89* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.12 GFI=.f =23 CFI=. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.65* Externality (Chance) .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .95 d.83* BIT3 .99 P-value = .70* BIT4 .047 RMR=.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.57* Internality -. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.

95). 171 . AQ F1. RMSEA=. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). CFI=.95. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.00524 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. F3.94 . AQ F1.20 respectively (see Figure 4. F4 Crash Occurrence 31.37). p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.06743 .3 Study 3 In Study 3. F3. Hopelessness (H).f. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. C. Internality and AQ.061. F3. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. C.061 Note: Internality (I). P.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. freeway urgency (F2). F2. d. AQ F1.97 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. the participants were taxi drivers.=21. F2.95 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.22 23 . P.7. P Proximal Factors F1. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.03084 .39. but not Externality. C.13). F2.4. 37.35265 . C. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4. F4 50. I. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. F2.f.079 Injury Occurrence I. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. GFI=. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). F3.93 .59 17 .40) on the accident involvement.20 and . path coefficients = -.39 21 .027 I. Externality Chance (ExC).82 28 .

Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .63* BIT3 .95 P-value = .20* Externality (Chance) .61* BIT4 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.39 GFI=.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.39* Internality -. *p<.13 .74* -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.061 RMR=.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.f =21 CFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.

(4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. 4.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.8. consistent with path analysis results. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. 2 and 3 are satisfied.38). the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.39). (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. and. Therefore.8.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes The four-step regression analysis showed that BIT strongly mediated the relationship between aggression and crash outcomes (see table 4. Table 4. 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. 173 .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.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. 4.

8. in Studies 1A.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 4.3 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 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.8. Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. 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. Table 4.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.41). where the 174 . 1B and 1C. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40).

For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. C or P and the two crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes.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 . no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. Table 4.

Study 1C vs.162. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. p <. Study 1A vs. p <.01. Study 1B vs.01. 176 .9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <. p <. Study 1B vs. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. Study 2: t(421)= 7.05. p <. p <.993. Study 1A vs.665. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(421)= -4. Study 2: t(422)= -2.663.9.442.01.41: 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 4.01.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.426. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 2: t(422)= 8. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. proximal variables (behaviour in traffic) and crash outcomes (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) were compared between automobile drivers from Study 1 and motorcycle drivers from Study 2.Table 4. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 1C vs.837.01. Study 1A vs.

186.484. t(253)= 8.01.9. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence.01.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <.01. t(986)= 37.926.704. p <. p <.01. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. p <.837.01.402. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. t(986)= 7.01. Study 1B vs.01.861.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. Study 1C vs.747.577. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.775. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Study 1A vs. respectively.801. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. and to injury occurrence. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(986)= 5. t(986)= 3. “freeway urgency”. Also. p <.01.614. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. p <. p <.01. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. 4. t(253) = 2. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. Study 1C vs. and t(986)= 35. Study 2: t(372)= -5. p <. p <.01.433. p <.01. t(986)= 34. 177 . Study 1A vs. p <. Study 1C vs. Study 2: t(421)= -3.01.200. p <. p <. 4. Study 1B vs.01. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence. p <. p <.211. t(986)= 6.9.01. t(986)= 30.01.261.977. p <.687. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Study 2: t(372)= -7. p <.01. Study 2: t(372)= -6.

01. t(253)= 8. p <.01. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. p <. t(253)= 31. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. and t(253)= 37.737. 178 . p <.946. Also.01and to injury occurrence. p <. t(253)= 8.01.01.982. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <. t(253)= 35. t(253)= 39. p <.977.016.01. “freeway urgency”.567. respectively. t(253)= 11.881.01.

2. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. Elander et al. In an earlier study. upon examination. They found gender. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. 1991). While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. 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. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. Elander et.1). not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. multi-factorial perspective.. 2002b). human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. 2. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. al. (1993). Often. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. freeway urgency.4. Evans. 1993.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. including gender.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . 1995.

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

… 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

SD=1. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=. there are other possible influences.01years. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. By virtue of their age and occupation. respectively).3. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Inclán. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.1 months.5. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. SD=22. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. SD=1. respectively).25 years. Because of occupational demands.hierarchy. as well. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers. SD=131.53. In the present study. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. 20.16. Of course. 5.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28.63.1. and 36. For taxicab drivers.7 months.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.6 months as licensed drivers. 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.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.2 years. SD=11. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. For taxicab drivers. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. They were also more experienced (266.

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

Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. where Cheung et al. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. as a group. but two possible influences stand out. 1999. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. 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. Again. Sendut. including locus of control.7 in 1996. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Nandy.5% annually from 9.8 million in 1996. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. 1966. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. Salih &Young. 1998. 2002. 1981). 1999. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. 5. Indeed.5 million in 1991 to 11. as a result. an internal locus of control. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . by extension.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999). Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.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. and. Gomez. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial.3. 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.

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

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

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

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

2000.g. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Trabasso & Liwag. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”.Robbins. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. 2002. 1993). Martin. MartinLoeches. 2004. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. 2002. Hinojosa. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs.. Making sense of. Dien. 2005). so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. Mercado & Tapia. 1997). they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 2000. and attempting to exercise control over. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. 1996.5. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. p. 162). 5. In fact. aggressive emotionality. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. Carretie. Performance (e. Lambie & Marcel. hostile automatic thoughts. Taylor & Fragopanagos.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Watson & Wan. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Tomkins. 1999. Stein.

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

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

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. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. RMSEA lower than .3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. Md-Sidin.5.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. 1998. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson.. GFI. CFI. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.. 2006). both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. 2006. Hair et al.In the present research. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. CFI and CFI) greater than . Sambasivan & Ismail. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. Fit index values (e.90. At the same time. 5. Structural equation modelling should. 2001. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2001. we would argue. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. Maruyama. significant p-values can be expected. It is argued here that.g. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. As a general rule.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.. 1998). be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. 2000).

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

02 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.499 0.034 97.97 1.909 0.98 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.043 129.99 0.94 0. Injury Occurrence 35.97 0. 199 . Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.Table 5.42 11.96 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.045 0. P.96 1.97 0.97 0.060 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. F2.02 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.91 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. F2. AQ.97 0. C. C.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.48 30. AQ. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. it is apparent that this factor may be important to consider in future research and crash prevention programmes and should not be excluded from models on which they are based. P.02 0.

it is 0. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. goodness-of-fit. et al. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Hair et al. farther along. Parker. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. However.. 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. in this analysis. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. in particular. while for Model 1C6. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. based on the notion that each variable included may. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. Nahn & Shapiro. For practical reasons. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. 1996).48. 1990.42. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. 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. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. but still acceptable. Manstead & Stradling. Schwebel. 2006). By selecting Model 1C5.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. they should be dropped. 2006. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.1). 200 . Sambasivan (2008) stated that. Storey. Kayumov. 1995. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity.

66). with five distal factors (internality.14.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . and hostile automatic thoughts). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 2001.29). via BIT. externally-focused frustration. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. Evans.1).21).4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. on crash outcomes. externality-powerful other.26. externalitychance. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .5.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. freeway urgency.4. .28 and .g.5.34) and injury occurrence (r = . externality-chance. 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.6.1 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. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. 2003). . . aggression. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.35. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.28 respectively). The results suggested that the alternative model.5.35 and . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. Rothengatter. 1991. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. for automobile drivers sampled. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. externality-powerful other. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. Sümer. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. In Study 1C.45). crash occurrence (r = -. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.

and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. 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. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. freeway urgency.25). externality-powerful other and hopelessness). Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.24). externality-chance.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. crash occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . Aggression. crash occurrence (r = .20) and injury occurrence (r = . freeway urgency.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. 202 . on the other hand. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. which sampled motorcyclists. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.55).65 and .5. Results indicated that the first alternative model.4. externally-focused frustration.23) and injury occurrence (r = .41). 5. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. had a better fit than other alternative models.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.

However.4. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. for the sample of taxicab drivers. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors.6. freeway urgency. externality-chance.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3.5. Finally. had a better fit than alternative models. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable.20 and . with four distal factors (internality. for crash outcomes. For motorcyclists. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. had no significant effect on BIT scores. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. externality-chance. 5. via BIT. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality. Distal factors.5. crash occurrence. such as internality. externally-focused frustration. externally-focused frustration. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. hopelessness. 203 . four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. aggression). with the sample of taxicab drivers. crash occurrence. Results indicated that the third alternative model. to measure outcome. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. their crash occurrence. 4. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. as a result.3). in turn and indirectly. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. externality-powerful other. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other and aggression).5.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model.

Sekaran (2003) points out. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 2005. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. chosen at random from taxi stands. In the present research. To a large extent. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses.5. 204 . that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. 2004). however. 2005).6. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar.1 Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations Generalisabilty of Findings A key feature of all research is the capacity for results obtained from a sample to be applied to a larger population with proportionately the same degree of diversity (Langdridge. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Huguenin.6 5. 278279). four of which were comprised of students from a single university. 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. Further. a total of five samples were taken. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.

it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.2). Since. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. Sabah. 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. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.6% (Study 1A: 99.2% and Study 2: 99. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. with a mean age of 20. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 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.In Malaysia. The most populous state. Study 1B: 100%. in Malaysia.55).6%. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. Table 5. 205 . Study 1C: 99.2%).13 years (SD = 1. Selangor. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.31. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. as elsewhere.

in this case.0 12.6 2.6 (10) 7.200. 206 .887.880 3.3 (12) 11.000 1.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.300.0 8.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.6 0.2 (1) 3.8 6.9 9. Not all states have the same number of drivers. In both cases.396.2 7. Table 5.387.7 (14) But. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.188 1.5 (4) 4.000 3.000 Per cent of national population 26.2: 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) 7.9 (3) 2.000 2.8 (6) 6. Table 5.286 1.000 2.2 (13) 11. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.5 (8) 3.2 11.150.000 215.9 (9) 7. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.500. 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.807 733. For that reason.6 6.4 5.2 (5) 0.7 (2) 2.576 2.100.818.674 1.2 (11) 12.004.1 (7) 8. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.260.000 1.2 3.6 5.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.503.Table 5.0 4.500 1.

19 4.13 6.05 2.735 165.76 3.144 12.768 6.588.70 3.46 8.92 25.920 181.029 273.22 17.19 7.68 7.600 135.490 525.45 9.19 3.90 5.50 29.003 10.606 24.97 12.43 2.561 1.198 156.725 70.34 11.37 3.85 1.36 8.212 39.137 698.35 4.635 1.496 187.774 Participants’ State of Origin (by license 109 42 20 98 70 61 56 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 % % % Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 12.041 92.4 4.93 9.428.96 3.104 6.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.84 11.27 14.064 9.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.88 3.70 12.093 5.55 7.Table 5.24 0.75 4.63 207 .617 10.93 0.163 10.20 12.98 0.467 25.88 2.34 3.91 2.026 10.28 3.230 266.89 3.170 13.251 324.16 2.785 393.24 2.

561 1.45 2.35 4.768 6.76 3.33 4.64 2.467 25.63 13.22 3.679 90.656 821.46 5.283 770.112 347.606 24.615.66 11.305 276.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.288 444.003 10.59 12.37 3.03 4.98 0.27 14.92 25.995 233.49 12.958 % 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 12.63 11.026 10.74 208 .496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.722 255.43 2.88 3.617 10.28 3.38 0.989 6.49 0.15 5.212 39.75 5.02 10.93 9.93 7.64 1.029 273.46 14.14 7.064 9.992 776.79 13.133 705.36 8.02 7.59 1.221 36.170 13.Table 5.104 6.20 15.82 9.38 4.4 4.725 70.727 161.856 310.48 1.144 12.10 9.88 2.

908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 .3 and 5.903** . 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.Table 5. participants came from – or. it can be argued that they were. there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. at least.814** 1 . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. At least on these dimensions.4. Of course. 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) . was representative of a high risk driver population. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.824** . This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. it is possible to say that sampling.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin.

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

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

6. 1997.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. and the hypothesis (H2. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. as well.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. Mercer. 2002). Second. 1999).In the present research. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. 1971). it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Unfortunately. 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. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. It must be noted here that there are certain problems with measuring driving frequency in this manner and that there were other alternative methods that could have been built into the research design instead. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. individual standard. 5. First.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.4).4. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training).7. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 1961.7. teams of humans. and machines are highly intricate (p. 1). for the last fifty years.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. 1957). the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. education.7.4. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans. 1957. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. World Health Organisation. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 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. or legal intervention.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. Slinn.5. At the same time. 5. Unlike 100 years ago.

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

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

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

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

(continued) H 1. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. 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. systems (CVHS) – wireless  adaptive cruise control  road network modifications. to in-vehicle display terminals. point.1.1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes.. ACC systems provide modifications.  Radar. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher  cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. 226 . traffic lights) safe.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. are travelling. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.  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”. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. including those in adjoining lanes. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. than the safety standard.2  lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. generally pilot”.1. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. the systems  intersection modification. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. the host vehicle. H 1.

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

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

to some extent. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. 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. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.4. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes.7. to inadequacies in driver training and testing.5.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). 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. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. however. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. teachers or the police. It suggests that. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. 73). 2001). the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. The present research suggests that. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. 229 . it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. like community centres or places of worship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. 34. (1986).D. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. P. W. (1991). Groningen. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. and Dischinger. (Eds. T. In Rothengatter. strategic and statistical considerations. Boston: Kluwer.A.. When hope becomes hopelessness. P. (1997).M. and Tortosa.F.S.. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. and Carbonell Vaya E. (1998). [29] Barjonet. (Ed. [24] Asian Development Bank (2005). G. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. 34.[22] Arthur. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Retrieved April 4. [25] Austin. and Biehl. October 18). GJ. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). 89-105.V. D. Amsterdam: Elsevier. R. 1173-1182. [26] Aylott. F. 2007 from http://www. (2001). (2002). and Tortosa. J.-E. (2005.31-42. P-E. M. [27] Bakri Musa.-E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2(4). Human Performance. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces.C. and Carson. In Barjonet. 14-29). B. S. NL: Styx. (Eds. 51(6). [23] Aschenbrenner. K. 21-30). [30] Barjonet. R. 231-234. 4(2)..) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. R.L. M. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. P. Manila: Philippines.M. 239 . 279-284. [31] Baron. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Wilde. [28] Ballesteros. Barrett. F.M.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. (1994).bakrimusa. (2002). and Alexander. and Kenny. In Trimpop.A. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. and Stiller. 3.M. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. W. R. 177-196.407-423.C. (1989). H. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. [268] Leech. Barrett.G. 659-662. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. [272] Lerner. IV. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). Janssen. (2001). D. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.K. 262 . (2002). [269] Lefcourt. [276] Levenson.. British journal of Psychology. K. (1974). (1976). 41.B. H. 479-490.M.P.. C. 93. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. and Nutter.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct..M. H. H. [267] Lee.V.[266] Lawton. L. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Jehle. Dutton. (1983). 38. N. Mahwah. In Lefcourt. A. 397-401. (1975). Moscati. (Ed. H. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention.M. A.L. 37. R. pp. Applied Ergonomics. 253-269). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. (1973). Journal of Personality Assessment. E. H. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [273] LeShan. New York: E. 303-304.A. [274] Levenson. 2nd Edition. [275] Levenson. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. [271] Lenior.. and Morgan. New York: Academic. Journal of Social Psychology. Malay dominance and opposition politics.M. Conner. 377-383. G.J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. [270] Lefcourt. Cancer as a turning point. 97. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. (2005). (2002). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. H. D. Billittier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .

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

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

Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .

Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. 1. How often do you travel in a car: as a driver (please check only one): ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never as a passenger (please check only one) ___ every day ___ several times a week ___ about once or twice a week ___ about once every two weeks ___ almost never ___ never 298 . For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. _________. please answer the following questions: 2. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. We are not asking for your name. _________...g.g.what manufacturer & model (e. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. Most of the time when you travel. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ 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:__________________________________________ ) 299 . When you want to use a car. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. 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. Within the last twelve (12) months.8. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 10. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes.

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. 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. Within the last twelve months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17.12. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. Within the last twelve months. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful