This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
and that driver behaviours. hopelessness. respectively). driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. 302 and 252. some personality constructs. personality traits. vii . BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. 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). gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. externally-focused frustration. demographic (age. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. freeway urgency. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. on average. where. However. 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. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. seven fatalities are recorded each day. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence.
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. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. viii . Among distal variables. as well.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Results indicated that. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. As reported in previous studies. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. As hypothesised. BIT. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. The role of the proximal variable.
3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 188.8.131.52 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2.5 1.1.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. Theories and Models 2.3 ix .1.1 An Applied Perspective 2.1 Accident Proneness 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 184.108.40.206.2.1 Concepts.4 Risk Theories 2.3 1.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 220.127.116.11 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.2 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.4 18.104.22.168 Differential Accident Involvement 2.2 22.214.171.124.2.3.
126.96.36.199 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.6 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.4 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 220.127.116.11 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 18.104.22.168 Process Models 2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 22.214.171.124.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.2.3 Locus of Control 126.96.36.199 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52 Demographic Variables: Age.5.4.2 Driver Characteristics 2.3.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.5.3 Ethnicity 2.1.1 3.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.2.1 Experience 184.108.40.206 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 2.1 Locus of Control 220.127.116.11 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.6.1 Demographic Variables 2.3 Psychological Variables 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.5.5.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 126.96.36.199 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2 Gender 2.9.5 2.2.3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.3.4 Hopelessness 188.8.131.52.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 184.108.40.206 The Haddon Matrix 220.127.116.11.2 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 3.1 Age 2.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.
4 Study 2 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.5.7 3.2 Research Instruments 18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199.2.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.7.1 Study 1A 188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206.6.3 Study 1C 3.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 220.127.116.11.2 Degree of freedom (df) 18.104.22.168 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 22.214.171.124.8 Crash Occurrence 3.4 3.7.1 Chi-Square (χ2).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 .126.96.36.199 3. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.2.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 188.8.131.52.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 3.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 3.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 184.108.40.206 Study 1B 3.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.6.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 220.127.116.11 The Sample 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 18.104.22.168.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 22.214.171.124.3 3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.7.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.
13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2.5 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Age.126.96.36.199.6.6.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.5.2 Results of Study 2 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.1.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 188.8.131.52.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.6. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.2.4 4.1.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.6 xii .5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.3 184.108.40.206 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.2.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.6.3.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.3.1 Results of Study 1 22.214.171.124 Validity Test Results 4.3.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.2 126.96.36.199.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 4.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.
4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 188.8.131.52 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 184.108.40.206.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.2 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.6.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.4.2 Study 2 4.1 Study 1C 4.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 220.127.116.11 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 18.104.22.168 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.7 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.8 22.214.171.124.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Goodness of Fit 5.5.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52 5.4.6 xiii .1 Advantages of Using SEM 184.108.40.206.5.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 220.127.116.11.1 5.
1 Theory vs.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5.3 Driver Selection.18.104.22.168.4.7.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 22.214.171.124 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.7.3 Education 5. Training and Rehabilitation 5.7 126.96.36.199 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.
3 114 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.10 4.3 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.1 2.2 3.9 4. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age. Table Page 2.4 3.5 4. 2 and 3 States from Which Study 1 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Drivers’ Licenses States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Validity of BIT scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analyses Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Validity of the AQ scales – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) Normality Tests.3 3.5 4.6 4. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.1 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.1 4.LIST OF TABLES No.7 4.11 xv .2 4.
14 4.19 133 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means. 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.20 134 4.16 128 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.22 136 4.28 4.21 135 4.27 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.24 137 4.17 129 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency. 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 4.4.13 4.29 xvi .18 131 4.12 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.
4 208 5.39 4.31 4.32 4.40 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 174 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Distribution of National Population and Sampled Participants by State State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention 174 4.37 4.36 4.3 5.38 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 4.41 175 5.2 5.30 4.33 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.35 4.34 4.6 xvii .4.
2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.3 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.2 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. 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 2.4 148 xviii .2 147 148 4.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 4.7 2. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.1 4. Hatakka.9 59 2.2 3.1 2.3 2.LIST OF FIGURES No. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy.3 4.4 2. 1996. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.6 2.1 3. 2.
12 4.8 4.10 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 4.13 xix .4.5 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.
2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I’m pretty happy with it. lane deviation and all the rest. But sometimes. I knew the fellow. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. My research design needed a serious re-working. How important these factors are. but she’d nagged him. He was driving. is a matter of debate … Obviously. He didn’t want to go. He was very popular with other students. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence.PREFACE Accidents occur. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. things were not going well. they cut across a lane too quickly. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. xx . He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. I don’t cry much any more. and his mental state. or wouldn’t. externally-focused frustration. I’m a fairly big guy. Her hands and voice quivered. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. But. I feel like it a bit right now. at least not with real tears. The behaviour of the traveller. he’d taken the same course as she. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. I was confused by the results I was getting. she was riding pillion. they are prone to other types of error as well. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. I wanted to throw in the towel. and this thesis is the result. LISREL couldn’t. they were frustrated and angry with each other. only a trimester or two earlier. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. programme. They were hurrying. I like to watch boxing. I told her not to worry. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. just every so often. finally.D. I got back to work on them. I didn’t recognise her at first. they were focused on the errand.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. She had been badly injured. And they crashed. to the weary traveler. . I hope it makes a contribution. She started crying and couldn’t stop. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. She had needed to go on an errand. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events.
2002. perceptual (Hong. Peters & Peters. road. Graham.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. for instance. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Enns.g. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. Theeuwes. 2007. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 2004) have been studied extensively.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Iwasaki. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Trick. 1996. 2000). Furuichi & Kadoma. Mills & Vavrik. This is particularly salient in developing countries. 11). 2006.g. Olson. Sabey (1999). 1999). Green. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. Mohan & Hyder. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. 2001). perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. judgement.. such as Malaysia. Stanton & Pinto. Sleet. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. state of mind and physical well-being. 2007.. 2001. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. Ogden. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. 2004). 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2000. 2000). highway engineers and automotive design specialists. Verwey. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. policy-makers. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Even after decades of study. Scurfield. commented that. including the 1 . Consistently over the years. cognitive (Vaa. 2002). anticipation. 2004).
351. p. There was a total of 341. 2007). A total of 10. The chapter 1.332 drivers and 15. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs.roadway. “the literature on personality has a long history. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 2 .2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 2004. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used.790. 2002. McKenna. According to Dewar (2002b). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. However.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents.112). 2005). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. 2003). 1989). hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. including the study of a large number of variables.252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. 1983). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. 21). locus of control.
3 . aggression (Parkinson. 2005. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Loo. West & French. Elander. 2006. 2005). 2004. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Ball & Rizzon. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Ulleberg. locus of control (Arthur. Severson. 1994. Shinar. 2002b. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 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. 1997. Hence. 1997). Barjonet & Tortosa. Draskóczy. Hartos & Simons-Martin. Schwebel. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Gidron. 1993. Stewart. 1991. Renner & Anderle. 2000). 2002) and many others. Rimmö. 3). 2003. Historically. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Wells-Parker et al. 1997). Gonzalez. 1999. Dewar. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. Blasco. 2002. 2005.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2004. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2004). 2000. Lin. Gal & Syna Desevilya. Wells. 1997). Lajunen & Summala. 1997). Vasconcellos. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. Cohn. 2002. 2001). and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. Sumala & Zakowska. 2002. 2001. Hwang. Barrett & Alexander. Verwey. 2007). 1979. 2003). Parada & Cortes. 2006. Wu & Yen. Özkan. Huang. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2001.
Speeding.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. 1997. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. 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. 2004). however. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. Noy (1997). has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i.. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. vehicle. in turn. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated.. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 1. in particular. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . 2005). falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. Hampson & Morris. 1996. A frequent criticism. for instance. aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. Parker. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. Sümer (2003).e. externally-focused frustration. 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. 1997).Increasingly.e. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.
injuries and deaths. 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. but also on their interactions. 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. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. By focusing on not only demographic. 9). and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. (b) driving experience. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. (d) driver hopelessness. 1. gender and ethnicity. situated as proximal variables. (e) driver aggression. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. p. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. 5 . While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. 2005. (c) driver locus of control. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety.4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. “the basic question must be asked as to whether traffic psychologists can appropriately solve the tasks that are to be mastered at the interface between people and road traffic” (Huguenin.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3.
2000). Rothengatter. 2004. 2004). all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Näätänen & Summala. in the applied sciences. “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. Some authors have suggested that. 6 . 1974). p. Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. Utzelmann. 1997. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. the plethora of theories available. 1997). 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. There is a growing sentiment that. Hatakka. 94). 2001. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 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. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 2005. road safety measures and public policy. Moreover. 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. Katila & Peräaho. Laapotti. 1993). 2004.
very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. which deals with methodology.g. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. Che Ali. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research.g. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression. Radin Umar. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. 7 . and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. To the author’s knowledge. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. attitude theory. 2001). 1. in turn. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.. It is useful. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. human motivation. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. 2001).. In doing so. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. This broader perspective. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. 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.
driving experience. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. cultural background). This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. In Study 1. the effects of selected demographic (age. first. driving (experience. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. externally-focused frustration. or outcome. 711). Babin. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented.however. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. variables (Sekaran. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Study 2 and Study 3. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. freeway urgency. In each successive study. p. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . Black. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. 2006. each entailing data collection from a different sample. aggression. 1B and 1C). Anderson & Tatham. The final result. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. 2003). hopelessness. in their capacity to predict outcomes and. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. In this case. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. gender. at the conclusion of Study 1C. second.
6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. over the course of 30. 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. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. 1. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. In Study 3. 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.to 45-minute trips. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. verbally administered psychometric instruments. Again. 9 . behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. After the initial model-building had been completed. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. in fact. a third model was constructed. In Study 2.are most important in predicting. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers.
along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. Keskinen. Manstead. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. Boyce & Geller. 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. while recognising the distinction. Are the attitudes. 1990). Katila & Laapotti. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. Finally. at least to a certain extent. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The present research. 1997). (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. 2002. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. Stradling. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. The relationship between the manner 10 . including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. as well. Baxter & Campbell. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. However. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
“discourteous” (Davin Arul. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. “reckless”. 2006). economic expansion. “impatient”. “laid-back” and “considerate”. 2005). “friendly”. to a rapid increase 12 .1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. in aggregate. “peaceful”. These are thought to have contributed. there were 341. 2005). A developing country in Southeast Asia. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem.1 2. 1989). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “bullies” and “selfish”. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. industrialisation and motorisation. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. Over 6. the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. inconsiderate and aggressive. they indicated “angry”. Recently.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. In newspaper reports. 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. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 2003). Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. in order of frequency. 2007). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 2005). or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. 2007). when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2007). “patient”.1. 2007). A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous.
Table 2.20 deaths per 10. 2005).in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.741 38.000 vehicles in 2006.012 19.287 in 2006.000 vehicles (Law.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35. 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.885 35. 2005). 2007). Table 2. Abdul Rahman. In Malaysia. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.040 2004 6.653 2004 326.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3. Generally.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.891 8.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries. & Wong.218 2005 6. This suggests that studies.236 49. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. Mohd Zulkiflee.304 in 1994 to 6.417 47.645 54.287 9. 2005).091 37. Radin Umar.7111 2003 298.552 37.815 2005 328.200 9.109 in 1996 to a total of 341. from 189. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Some of the urgency in discussions of Malaysia’s road safety problem has been related to the high frequency of roadway deaths and injuries occurring among adolescent and post-adolescent age groups (Radin Umar.425 2003 6.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. Studies 13 . in Malaysia.395 2006 6.425 5.286 9. 2003. Subramaniam & Law.228 9.264 2006 341.98 deaths per 10.415 52.2).
It has been reported that.16 90 0.551 12.68 128 0.21 3.63 160 0.023 5.84 1.94 2.378 11. Morrison & Ryan. Palamara.4 billion to RM5.178 15.7 billion.15 3.07 2.034 4.803 9.15 572 2.22 150 0. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly. in 1999 alone.71 543 2.64 135 0.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem. 14 .82 1.99 164 0.65 121 0.26 463 2.05 2. general insurers paid RM1.620 7.389 6. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.47 280 1.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank. or about 2. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.61 99 0.65 2.81 3. or an average of RM4.27 458 2. and particularly among younger drivers.08 541 2. 2006).77 3.81 1.37 337 1.11 2.10 3.29 708 3.953 17.180 10.97 1.50 979 4. 2003).416 6.110 10.06 608 3.67 billion.45 30 0.56 3.54 708 3.41 302 1.92 2.15 43 0.593 11.086 9.48 105 0.025 9.85 2.820 13. 2001.40 1.67 206 0.29 2.341 12. Table 2.91 984 4.08 2.31 3.921 100 20.947 10.205 11.49 450 2. 2002.48 323 1.23 2.94 625 3.038 13.418 100 19.997 14.967 100 19.216 10.68 3. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama. 2005).90 159 0.76 22.005 15.08 585 2.94 1.81 2.05 1.80 203 0.309 10.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.049 15.85 147 0.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.469 15. 2001).315 17.07 2.05 2.448 17.92 1.08 1.431 7.709 8.72 554 2.
1999). There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. controversy swirled over a reportedly cynical comment by the Transportation Minister of the day that: We have done what others have been doing around the world. traffic congestion. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. 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. The economic consequences can be estimated. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. What else can we do.Yet. 2006). lane definition. Criticisms of road configuration. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. In 1999. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. Some seven years later. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. which is actually a nightmare. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 2005). or the pain of the maimed. if people want to die? (Lim. (Bernama. 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.
Generally. what they do – virtually all facets of the Malaysian driving population have come under increasing public scrutiny in an effort to further a better 16 . approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. Researchers. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. is often mentioned as a factor. given greater risks of accident. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. 2005). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. for instance. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 1997). as compared with 1. 2007). Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. In a recent newspaper interview. 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. 2006).693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 2007). newspaper columnists. 2001. In 2006. Who they are. though.(Abdul Rahman et al. how they think.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers. 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. 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. 2005). Krishnan & Radin Umar. unlike in other countries.
2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. Law et al. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. Bartle & Truman. however. For instance. rather than personality factors. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. 1996). 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. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. Ahmad Hariza. perhaps. 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. 17 . a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. 2. Law. In a separate study. In the same study.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. Ward. Musa. Mohd Nasir. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. respectively. (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. Chalmers & Langley. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Radin Umar. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. In none of the studies of the MSP. 2007). with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities.1. injuries and fatalities. conspicuity and excessive speeding. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes.
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. He argued that. Williamson’s (2003) assertions do have certain implications for an understanding of how human factors may play a significant role in the high rate of motor vehicle crashes in Malaysia. a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. the factor that made the high speeds possible. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. 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. The very monotony of the road surface. 1996). 110). however. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 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. This. resulted in a myriad of problems.122). has linked peninsular communities. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. 18 . motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. they are accident prone. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. since 1994.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. generalising to all driving environments and situations. According to Williamson. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 121-122).
1991). experiential. 784).2. West and French. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p.2 2. Among human factors. etc. 1993). This has included the examination of age and gender. 62).2. 1993. Christ. Among engineering factors. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. but rather 19 . Åberg. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. personality characteristics (Elander. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic. bad road conditions. by far. 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. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. particularly. levels of driving experience and. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).
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. Haddon (1963). 1994). 641). personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 2005). 2004). to a large degree. and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. or at least predict. Further.by the behaviour of drivers. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. However. 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. prior accident experience (Lin et al. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 1997. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. 2004) and other contextual variables. 2002. 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. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. Lajunen & Summala. 377). Ranney. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. unclear. 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. weak.
especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. 2003). 321).2. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. 482). Wagenaar & van Koppen. 2. 1997a). 2002. Underwood & Milton.2. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic.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. there has been an interest in driver personality. information processing. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. the lack of replication of many studies. Nevertheless. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. 2005). It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. 1996.2. 21 . 2003). 1961.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. 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. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 1993). Preston & Harris.
transportation planning. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. in the field of traffic.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. in a Spanish survey. 2002). Ochando. According to Rothengatter (2001). Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. or peculiar to.) 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. 246).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.2. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. medicine. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. anthropology and sociology. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. traffic and transportation. 3). This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2. but that complex traffic 22 . 4).654-655. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology.2. eoncompassing engineering.” (p. To wit. Indeed. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. ergonomics. or the psychological support for intervention. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. psychology. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.
surrounding environments and 23 . there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 2003. over the past ten years. Stanton (2007) noted that. Hyder & Peden. 2007. Ergonomics has made a contribution. 2004. 24). 1997. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. 2000). Odero. Johnston. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. 1995. the study of cognitive processes. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. the road infrastructure and other road users. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. as well. In a recent special edition. Wilson. the road environment comprises the vehicle. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. 1158). the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Peden & Hyder. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. In the broadest sense. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Garner and Zwi. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. in particular. 2002).
which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. 1997. Neerincx & Schriebers. 2004). 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. error and cognitive modelling. “This school of though. particularly the notions of mental load. though. predict and modify road user behaviour. Stanton & Young. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. 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. 26). 2001). Increasingly.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. road signs and all the difference infrastructure and hence to a greater flexibility in their hitherto purely engineering approach which supposed that people would adapt to the machine” (p. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Noy. Jannssen. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. 2006. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. 2. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building.3 2. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.3.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). and “Generation Three” ergonomics. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. Walker.
A-18) Often. 2005). generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. 1985). often in mathematical form. in traffic psychology.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things.. Reasons for this are likely several. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 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. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. many models have been proposed. or both.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. or accident-causing behaviours. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. 2000. 1995). whether theories should explain everyday driving. On the other hand. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. p. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. Healy. In traffic psychology. 1969). p. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. To a degree. 2.3. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. 2005. but for the purposes of this thesis. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. this may be due to 25 .
motives and personalities (Robbins. 26 . 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. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. enjoy driving. 2005). and emotional determinants. For over ninety years. 189). minimise delay and driving time. avoid obstacles. given the complexity of human behaviour. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. social.. 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. Rothengatter.3. 2004. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic. and most of the time is not especially influential. 2002). … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual.the imprecise definition of concepts.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. risk adaptation theories. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. cognitive. attitudes. Instead. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. etc. 2. Notwithstanding these difficulties. feel in control. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that.
without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). anxiety and driving anger. aged 16 to 29 years. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. McRae &Costa. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. 1995. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. 1980) and other safety outcomes. 1979). 1990). for instance. aggression. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. but not occupational accidents. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 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). However. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. 2000). neuroticism. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. According to Rothengatter (2002). 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. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. conscientiousness. 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. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 .
during and following the war years. “irrespective of environment. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. λ. occupational and otherwise. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. West & French. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. If each individual has a unique λ-value. In 1917. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. just as one can meaure height. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. p. 290). personality. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. his or her accident proneness. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it.152). in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. the average number of accidents. 1984). but persists today. Research by board statisticians. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. 1993. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. in certain cases.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. 2. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. 1920). p. found first that the frequency of accidents. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity.3.finding.3. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . 1962. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. sensori-motor skill. weight and perhaps even intelligence. According to Haight (2004).
more probably psychological (p. as well. in traffic or when playing 29 . produced a positive. Farmer and Chambers (1926. subjects reported significant. in successive years. inadequate or irrelevant. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. in a Finnish telephone survey. p. 1991. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. 2004). 1956). 195).out what that value is. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. in any sample. 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. but did not take into consideration whether. 1997). Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 2004). inappropriate. “Because crashes are so infrequent. The accident-prone concept. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. 1939) and many others. 294). however. Johnson (1946). None of the experiments. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. perhaps physiological. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 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. noting that. at home. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. Scores on the λ dimension. made an assumption that. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. by devising clever tests. 1929. 422). Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919).
8-9). While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.3. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Ultimately. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. The concept itself is ill-defined. Pijl. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. 1993).3.. 2. 562). therefore. So. Stolk.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. 1980. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. pp. Visser. roadway. 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. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept.sports. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 1998). Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory.05. sports and family settings.
experience more accidents than others. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. However.. in a study of driving on icy roads.accident proneness (Chmiel. That is. The introduction of divided highways. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities.3. For example. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. A driver who enters a construction zone.4. following their review of the literature. in fact. 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.3. 2. 2000). 2. large earth-moving 31 . crash barriers. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. 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. albeit not crash occurrence. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. substantially. Elander et al.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. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. Wilde (1982.
a driver motoring along a wide. according to the theory. In two separate studies. Sagberg. at least until the target risk level was reached. Collectively. Ranney. Initially. That is. 1989. 2001. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. according to the theory.” (Fuller. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. in turn. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Wilde. 1986. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. 1988. 1997). 1994. for example. 2008. 2002). would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. Conversely. 14). p. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 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. When others (Haight. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities.vehicles and warning flags. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. flat. McHugh & Pender. Fosser & Sætermo. is if the level of target risk is reduced. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. Michon. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 2005).
” (Vaa. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. Lichtenstein. pay sufficient attention to risk. 1151). 2002). 2002). 2008. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. p. To the contrary. however.. but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Evans 33 . Corrigan & Coombs. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. 1989. p. 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. Fischoff. Slovic. 223). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. 1977). 2001. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. Rothengatter. 53). but they are not defined in psychological terms. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 2004). “Costs and benefits are central to the model.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. (p. More than any other driving theory. the community. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. 2004). 1994. Also. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter.. or the nation” (Brown & Noy.
While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. p. At this point. O’Neill and Williams (1998).(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. 26). In other words. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. after a similar review. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. Rather. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings.3. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. or expecting. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 1987. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. 2. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. 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. and 34 . Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. 2004. In addition. while Brown and Noy (2004) noted that it remains possible that factors other than risk underlie the behaviour changes that follow alterations to the traffic system. 81).2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. 92).4. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. for example.
In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. Summala (1996. A large number of studies show that external motives. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. 1998. Glad & Hernetkoskis. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). Hataaka. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. such as time pressure. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy.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. as a result. for instance. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. Van der Hulst. 2. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions.3. Keskinen. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. Gregersen. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation. 1999). 2002.1). level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2.learn how to respond safety to. much of which arises from personality. and specific driver actions. 35 . Meijman & Roghengatter. age and social variables. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. Reeder et al. 1996. On the other hand.
but that is not 36 .1: Task Cube (from Summala. a property absent within the task cube concept. seemingly concurrently. 15). for example. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. at the same time. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but. this does not necessarily imply a hierarchy as this is as much true for “lower” level as for “higher” level tasks … Drivers do perform tasks such as route finding and manoeuvring. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. pointing out that a task hierarchy assumes that successful completion of the task at a lower level is required for successful performance of a higher-level task. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2.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. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. 1996) Keskinen et al.
1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. 252). unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2.1). However. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 2000) 37 . either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. Fuller (2000. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. high speeds.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.g.3.. Most of the time. 2. affective states).2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. 1982. 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.
1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. Two limitations have been noted. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. Generally.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) An attitude is a relatively stable and enduring predisposition to behave or react in a certain way toward persons. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. According to the TRA. however. and Keskinen et al.Fuller’s theory has. 126). people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. for the most part. 2004. emotional state. 1985. Fishbein & Ajzen. 40). p.3. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.6. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. 2. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. objects. time pressure). p. 1985. 1991). Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. institutions or issues (Chaplin. 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. Since 1985. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour.
To deal with this uncertainty.3. 24). subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). According to the TPB. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). then.” (Azjen. see Figure 2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 1985. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”).7. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. however (Sharma & Kanekar.2). are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. 2007). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). 39 . “Even very mundane activities. and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). p. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. 2. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.
greater perceived control (i. or sense of self-efficacy. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 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. 1989) Within the theory. p. Further. 40 . 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. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control.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. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. In one study. when intention is held constant. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research.e. 2003). it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed.. 2002. 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. 253). Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.
pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations.2. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. for instance. Attitude toward speeding. 2002).In another study.4. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. based on data extracted from police record forms.1.4 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. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. 2. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. Austin and Carson (2002).2). 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. 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. but after controlling for distance travelled. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. vehicles. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour.
Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.2.1 The Haddon Matrix Traditional studies of human factors in road safety have tended to view transportation as a system with four major component elements: the human (H).. 2. 1994). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. the vehicle (V). however. Swaddiwudhipong.locations and settings (e.4. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V.4.2 Process Models 2. E and especially H factors. 1997) 42 . 1998. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. 2000). More recently. Law. within specific situational contexts. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. Mahasakpan. 1999). 1997. Seow & Lim. Koonchote & Tantiratna. Nguntra. R.4).g. Richardson & Downe. the road (R) and the environment (E).4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy.
aggression). Within the generic model. Therefore. extraversion. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. gender.. as well. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk.5). it may influence crash risk through some other. 283). it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. age. By contrast.. on one hand. more proximal variable.2. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.g.2. substance abuse) that. contribute directly to crash outcomes. speeding. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. Personality factors within the 43 . arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established.g.4. sensation seeking. Factors within the distal context include not only road. on the other hand. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.g. Sümer (2003) argued that the contextual mediated model could explain the relatively weak associations between accident involvement and personality characteristics observed in many previous studies. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk..
risk taking. depression.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. 2003) 44 .g. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. e. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. As such. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. sensation seeking. psychological symptoms. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors.g. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.
in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model.4. driver propensities to commit errors or violations.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 2003). Heppner & Mallinckrodt. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. 2006). driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. M. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. If. called the outcome.2.2. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. Also termed intervening variables. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). 1986). 2004). mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. 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. 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. moderating or mediating effects. for instance. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. 45 . which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Figure 2. such that path c′ is zero. In Figure 2.6(i). Tix and Barron. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency.
6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. the impact of a moderator (path b). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. 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. Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. variable (see Figure 2.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2. or independent variable (path a). 46 . 2003). can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. 1986). or dependent. or testing the moderating effect. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).
He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. verbal aggression. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. he found that. given wide 47 . sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. errors). more relevant to the model he proposed. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. However. dangerous drinking). Using structured equation modelling. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. psychoticism). the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. Further. hostility. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. and non-professional students who were mostly students. anger). mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. anxiety. In turn. hostility. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression.4.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers.2.
sensation seeking patterns. lapses. Day. Sümer. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. 1998). agreeableness (helpfulness. Here. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. trust). Elander et.739). a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Edward. 2003. 1920). including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. applied the five factor. Greenwood & Yule. 1993). for high-λ individuals. Watson. Bell.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. al. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. broad-mindedness). self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). 1990) to a similar analysis. as recommended by Elander et al. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. personality model (Costa & McRae. sensation seeking). In a subsequent study. 1919. conscientiousness (dependability.. 2002. 2005. in most cases. or “Big Five”. 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. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . McRae &Costa. (1993) and others. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. Finally. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). 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. Tubré & Tubré. 1995. Arthur.
moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). self esteem. for instance. material loss. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. Bilgic. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. reported that driver anger. have acted on those recommendations. using a similar research design. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Berument and Gunes (2005). 2. hostility. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. phobia. Sümer. anxiety. including perceived control. air force and gendarmerie.aberrant driving behaviours. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. navy. In other words. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors.2. Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. Sümer. 49 . 225). psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. In another study. They found that the effect of proximal variables. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. prior to the present one. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. Karanci.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. optimism. yielding support for the contextual mediated model.4.
Williams & Shabanova.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. 2002. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. 2003. 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..8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. 2007) 2. 1995). in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 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 2.8). they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.Downe (2007).. Odero et al. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.g.1. Yet. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Retting. Type A.. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5.5 2.5. 1997. 2003). heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . Weinstein & Solomon.g. Campbell & Williams.
for these difficulties. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. 1997b. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. 2001. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. in many cases. 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. less emotionally mature. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Matthews & Moran. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. Harré. Moscati. In fact. 2002a. Vassallo et al. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. 1986). this is a reflection of lifestyle. McDonald (1994) reported 51 .. Connery & Stiller. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Bina. However. 2007). Jehle. Jonah.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. The former is less experienced at driving. Billittier. 221). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. follow too closely. p. drive while fatigued. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. 2002a. overtake dangerously. the contrary appears to be true. specifically more likely to drive too fast. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. at least in part. tobacco smoking.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner.
39). so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). it was hypothesised in the present study that. 2007). they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. on crash and injury occurrence. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. Vissers & Jessurun. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. Similarly.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 1999. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. and that young drivers. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. indirectly. 52 . (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. In the present study. Ulleberg. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. Stevenson et al. 2002). Justification of age-related hypotheses. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. as age decreased.
p. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). as well. it 53 . that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. Turner and McClure (2003) showed that young male drivers scored higher than females in driver aggression and thrill seeking and in their general acceptance of risk. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. and behaviours predictive of fatalities. MacGregor. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). as age decreased. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. darkness)” (p. self-reported injury would also increase. for instance. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Waller. “In all studies and analyses. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. without exception.failure to use seat-belts. more often at hazardous times (e.. Elliott. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.g. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement. it was also hypothesised that..5. Monárrez-Espino.g. 2004. Tavris. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. Shope.4). 2. 129). for instance. for instance. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities.1. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Chipman. However. in addition to having a higher number of crashes.
At the same time. Lenard.S. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). worldwide. Dobson. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. 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.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. 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. Ball. for instance. Flyte & Garner. This is important. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. in a sample taken in the U. 1997. to date. Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. state of Washington. Lonczak. While there is much of value in such an approach. found that while male drivers. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Welsh. 2001). Brown. which typically took place during evenings and nights. 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. (b) females drive increasingly more. 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. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Woodcock. reported more traffic citations and injuries. 525526). they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 .
as per the traditional pattern. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. Turner & McClure. 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. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. control of traffic situations. (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. Lourens et al. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). 2003). 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. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. though. In a subsequent report. In other research. Female drivers.. showing that male drivers were. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. Forward. on the other hand. et al. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. 11). had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. indirectly. Justification of gender-related hypotheses.anger. and loss-of-control incidents. In the present study. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. McKenna. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. were less frequently involved in crash situations. 55 . just as they had in 1978. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. In a study of Dutch drivers. evaluated their driving skill lower. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. Laapotti. on crash and injury occurrence. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. 2006.
being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Corry.S. On the other hand.2. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American.1. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Garrett. But. differences in fatalities persisted. In one of the few studies reported. Haliburton. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Romano. Goldweig and Warren. Harper. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. lower rates of safety belt use. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. To a large degree. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Marine. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Summala and Hartley (1998). Schlundt. 2005). nonCatholic countries. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. for instance. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 .5. Lajunen. Levine.
2). peace. Conscious of what other people say about us. piety. humility. cultural differences can be more subtle.. filial piety. In the present study. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. hierarchical. on crash and injury occurrence. family ties.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. Fatalistic. Strong relationship orientation. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. While religious affiliation. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. prosperity and integrity. Education. indirectly. Family centeredness. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . harmony with nature. brotherhood/sisterhood. However. prosperity. in fact. cooperation. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. respect for knowledge.. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. Strong relationship orientation. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. religion. Roman et al. They concluded that there were. polite behaviour. respect for elders. shame-driven. family honour. respect for elders. Indirect communication.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. Table 2. Spirituality. 1999). 2005). Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. 1999). Karma. respect for elders. face saving. 2000. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. hard work. courtesy.
1971). 2001).2 Driver Characteristics 2.g. On the other hand.5. in a given road and traffic scenario. etc. with different weather conditions. 166). As experience grows. 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 . allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. Hatakka and Katila. directionality of the effect was not predicted. Laapotti.. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly.5. and as such. increased experience usually. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. passenger distractions different vehicles.2. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. 2. journey lengths.behaviour in traffic. as drivers become more experienced. 1995. although not always.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. 2002). Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Allied to this. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. Keskinen. 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. Lajunen & Summala. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. A large number of studies have shown that. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine.
Yet. 2001). and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. 2004). as individuals acquire experience. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. 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. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. 1996.9). direction and position Figure 2. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. environment. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others.by Keskinen. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. Hatakka. 59 . they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 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. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. It assumes that. in many studies of age and gender differences. Internal models contain knowledge of route. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts.
Brown & Ghiselli. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. 1949. such as problems in vehicle handling skills. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. Young novice drivers. 2007). 1948. and especially young male drivers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. Peltzer and Renner (2003). 2004). frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. for instance. was used in this study. on the other hand. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. Mintz. 1954).and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. Female novice drivers. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 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. Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Ghiselli & Brown.Laapotti et al. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. A simple measure of driving experience.g.. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers.
and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1995. the concept is much less well developed. 1984). 1993). 2002a).2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. 2001. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. 282). the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 1986. Second. Elander et al. McKenna. on crash and injury occurrence.5. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. and type of route where.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Pelz & Schuman. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Duncan & Brown. 1991).. 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. 2. Generally. 1971). First. Rothengatter. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 1984. indirectly. In individual differences research. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).2. Wilde. the miles they drive. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . driving occurs (Dewar. for instance. it is accepted that the more one travels. technical or legal changes relating to road safety.
Evans (1991) and others. however. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. although much research does not (e. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. Justification of exposure hypotheses. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. (1999) have argued that. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. Lourens et al.. 62 . it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Bina et al. on crash and injury occurrence. in countries like the USA. Mercer (1989) showed that. 2007). without correcting for annual mileage.g. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Odero et al. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. (1993). 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. Ferguson. Christie. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. 2007.. Williams & Shabanova. 2006. 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. In the present study. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. 2003). indirectly.hours than during the forenoon. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. 2007. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Towner and Ward. (1986). Cairns. Teoh & MCartt. Yet. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. as defined by Elander et al.. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al.
1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Stanley & Burrows.10). she separated the externality dimension into two.1. Holder & Levi. 1975. 2006. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.3. or externals . 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. 15). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. 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. or internals.5. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. She argued that “it is quite conceivable that a person who believes in control by powerful others may also perceive enough regularity in the actions of such people as to believe that he or she can obtain reinforcements through purposeful action” (p. and second.1 Locus of Control 2. Levenson (1975.2. In contrast.3.5.3 Psychological Variables 2. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.5. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. 1991. Hyman. 1990). 1999). 63 . Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. 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. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.g.
2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Sinha & Watson. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. According to Phares (1976).5.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. 64 . 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. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.Luckner. luck. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3.1. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 1989. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots.
s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. 39). On the other hand. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 65 . Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. but results have been inconsistent. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. 1987). 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. 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. In a subsequent study. 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. 1999). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. French & Chan. however. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour.
In an important study. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. (p. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. Arthur et al. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. They found that. 1260). In a much earlier study. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. That is. 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). when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. although internality was unrelated to DDB. Gidron. leading the authors to conclude that “if a relationship exists. This study provided support for the view that the effects of personality traits on driving 66 . an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. offences. On the other hand. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. cognitive. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control.
Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. indicated that. (1991). Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. France. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. Israel. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated.1. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Germany.3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. In very early research. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. Japan. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. 2. Their results.5. Noy (1997). as hypothesised. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . is based on the notion that … luck. complexity and unpredictability. Canada and Japan. Noting that Chinese culture. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Hsieh. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. India. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Italy. 122). and the USA.
skill and ability. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. 68 . Chinese of Malay extraction. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. all internal characteristics. This was very true for the locus of control variable. only Cheung. Cheung. Chinese and Indian populations. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. In very early research. 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. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). 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. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Much more recent research by Sinha and Watson (2007) used Levenson’s (1984) multidimensional model to show that Indian university students are significantly more externally controlled by fate and chance than Canadian university students. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. At the same time.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. To the author’s knowledge.
indirectly. McMillan. Niméus. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Cases usually 69 .3.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. First. In the present study. Sinha & Watson. 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. Kovacs and Weissman. Ohberg. Weissman. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. on crash and injury occurrence. Finally. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. (2003). 1995. 1987. 1973). et al. Montag & Comrey. Fox & Klerman. 2007). Özkan & Lajunen. 1975). 1991. 2005). it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. 2007. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck.5. 2. Beresford & Neilly. 1997.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. Gilbody. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. without objective basis. 1975.
and crash risk (Ohberg et al. including risky driving. Firestone & Seiden. on crash and injury occurrence. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Selzer & Payne. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. in fact. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). Breen and Lussier (1976). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. 1974). Mendel. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Henderson. 1997. Second. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1990. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 1962). Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Prociuk. luck. 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. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states.. in a more detailed study. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. Several authors. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. it was suggested that “many persons with self-destructive inclinations may unconsciously attempt to destroy or injure themselves through automobile accidents and that these accidents are rarely perceived as suicidal attempts by either the driver or the public” (Selzer & Payne. indirectly. In the present study. assertiveness and positive emotion. 1998. 1976. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. it was 70 . hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. Very early on. 1962). mental disorders and alcohol misuse. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. for instance.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress.
O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Koumaki. 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. Tzamalouka. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 2006). Chliaoutaks. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Mizell.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious. 2002).3 Aggression Since the 1980s. physiological arousal. 2002. 2000. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially.. Richards. Barton and Malta. 2. 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. 2003. Malta & Blanchard. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Underwood. Lynch & Oetting. Filetti. 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. 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. Bakou. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. learned cognitive scripts. learned disinhibitory cues. and deindividuation. Wells-Parker et al. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. 71 . Deffenbacher. including subjective feelings of stress. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Demakakos. 2000. Chapman. In a largely unrelated study.5. & Darviri. 1999.3. Wright & Crundall.
lack of control over events. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. stress induced by time pressure. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Houston. Groeger (2000). threat to own safety and self-eesteem.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Snyder. 1962). 1976. However. such as TAPB. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. (2006) extended Shinar’s (1998) efforts to broaden the focus of frustration-based explanations by showing that sensation seeking interacted with anger and hostility to influence driving violations. though. as another. More recently. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . 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. 163). rather than a cause of. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. Crowson. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. the display of aggression (p. Schwebel et al. through the use of self-statements. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. Ellis. Bettencourt. Talley.
Frueh & Snyder. 2006). Later still. 1999. 1998. on crash and injury occurrence.6. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. 1999. In the present study.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. Magnavita. Elofsson & Krakau. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. indirectly. 1999). consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. 2001). Thurman.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. Williams & Haney. that the total amount. Kumashiro & Kume. (2003). Kamada. Petrilli. Rice. 2000. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Narda. McKee.. 1981. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. 2006. 2002. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. Miyake. Blumenthal. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). and specific content. impatience. Undén. Lynch.6 2. 2. James & Nahl. Sato. Deffenbacher. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. 1985). Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. It was also hypothesised. aggression. insecurity about status. Sani. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Karlberg. Carbone. 73 . competitiveness. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. al. Bettencourt et al. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses.
the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. similarly. focused on the time urgency component 74 . was driving frequency. gender. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. Nabi et al.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. Raikkonen.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. 1979) and number of accidents. 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. where Type A drivers were 4. Nabi. socio-professional category. 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. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. Chastang. for instance. Karlberg et al. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. however. Zzanski & Rosenman. Consoli. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). alcohol consumption. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). particularly in driving situations that require prudence. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. 1989. West. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. age. driving style. however. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. In a correlational study of British drivers. studied police officers in Italy. but not with accident risk. (1998). Chiron. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. In none of these studies. 1990). category of vehicle.
all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. Of the four BIT factors. namely “externally-focused frustration”. ethnicity. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum.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. Gender. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. as measured by the student version of the SJAS. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. 2. Glass. In a subsequent study. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. 1977). If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. then use of the Type A/B 75 . stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes.6.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. on the other hand. Miles and Johnson (2003). freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). At the same time. 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).
hopelessness. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. 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. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. including gender. They argued that it would be preferable. 13). on the other hand. In neither of their studies. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. In the present study. that are measured by the BIT scale. though. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. 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. although ethnicity. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. ethnicity. Similarly. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. To the author’s knowledge. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. At the present time. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. driving experience.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. locus of control. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. Specifically. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and.
Miles & Johnson. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. 2005. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. Nabi et al. 1985). Further. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. 77 . West et al.. externally-focused frustration. 1993) and.hostile automatic thought. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. 2003.. 1986.
aggression (see Figure 3.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one. In Study 1B.1).2). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 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. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control and hopelessness) variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3. with the addition of a third psychological variable. each study explored the extent to which demographic. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. Then. 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. Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.3). 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. In Study 1C. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. 1B and 1C.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. the effects of the same demographic and psychological variables in predicting self-reported BIT and then in predicting self-reported crash and injury occurrence were evaluated. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. 78 .
In Study 2, using motorcycle drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to investigate the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control and hopelessness) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.2).
In Study 3, using taxicab drivers as units of analysis, the research model was tested to study the effects of demographic (driver age, gender and ethnicity) and psychological factors (locus of control, hopelessness and aggression) in predicting self-reported BIT and then on self-reported crash and injury occurrence (see Figure 3.4).
DISTAL CONTEXT H2
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Crash Occurrence Injury Occurrence
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.1: Research Model (Study 1A and Study 2)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Gender Ethnicity Age
Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Indirect aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
H7 H12 H9
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
Figure 3.2: Research Model (Study 1B)
Driver experience Driving frequency
Demographic Variables Gender, Ethnicity & Age
Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT)
Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) Locus of Control
Locus of Control x AQ
BHS x Locus of Control
HAT x AQ
Figure 3.3: Research Model (Study 1C)
Driver experience Taxicab experience
Ethnicity & Age
Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression
Behaviour in Traffic (BIT)
Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway urgency Externally-focused frustration Destination-activity orientation
Locus of Control
Internality Externality (chance) Externality (Powerful Other)
Locus of Control x AQ
Figure 3.4: Research Model (Study 3)
Definition of the Variables This section identifies, classifies and provides an operational definition of each
of the variables used in the present research. Variables included (a) self-reported driving characteristics; (b) demographic variables; (c) locus of control; (d) hopelessness; (e) aggression; (f) hostile automatic thoughts; (g) self-reported behaviour in traffic; (h) selfreported crash occurrence; and (i) self-reported injury occurrence. Variables (a) through (f) were grouped within a super-ordinate class as distal variables. Variable (g) was considered as a proximal variable. Variables (h) and (i) were grouped within a superordinate class as outcome variables.
Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency Driver experience was defined as the length of time, in months, that participants
reported they had held a valid driving licence, consistent with the approach used in earlier research by Synodinos and Papacostas (1985). Frequency of travel was measured by asking participants to respond to the question, “how often do you travel in a car” as a driver, using a six-point Likert-type scale.
Demographic Variables: Age, Gender and Ethnicity Participants reported their age in years, their gender and chose a descriptor of
their “ethnic background” from a list including “Malay”, “Chinese-Malaysian”, “IndianMalaysian” and “Other, please specify”. The use of ethnic self-identification has been the most frequently used means of establishing cultural affiliation in previous studies of driving behaviour (Ey, Klesges, Patterson, Patterson, Hadley, Barnard & Alpert, 2000; Romano, Tippetts & Voas, 2005a, 2005b).
Locus of Control Locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they are in
control of the events that affect them (Rotter, 1966). The present research, adopted Levenson’s (1973) assumption that there are three independent dimensions to locus of control: internality; chance and powerful others. Within this model, one can endorse
1999). a thought process that expects nothing.2. For the purposes of the present research.4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. In the present research. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. cognitive.2. 3.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 25). and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. 3. overlapping and ambiguous. For each of the five studies undertaken. affective. Lester and Trexler (1974). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 1994). Weissman. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. a separate score for internality (I). It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. but not chance.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck.
1957. 1996). Oetting. hitting or interpersonal violence. 3. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . 2005). The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. frustration. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness.2. social alienation and paranoia. In the present research. 2003. Deffenbacher. Specifically. through fighting. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. Lynch & Morris. The effects of participants’ total aggression. the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. Bergeron & Vallerand. were also investigated. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. and. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing.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). Vallières. expressed through the presence of irritability.
was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. (c) revenge – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to take some action against another individual to get even for a perceived wrong. and. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit...g. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. hit or kill another individual.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. 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.2. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . characterised by excessive impatience. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. the BIT score. 1998). frequent lane changing. not allowing others to merge or overtake. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. competitiveness. 3.
In the resulting measure of this variable. 88 . 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. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn).2. three demographic variables (driver age. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. 3.3 3. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. in Study 1A. (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.g. 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2. Then. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. and..1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. the influence of driving experience. while driving. to the extent of inattention conditions.3. travel frequency.them (e.8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. 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.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. Then.
two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. the influence of driving characteristics. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 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. the influence of driving characteristics. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control.3.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Then. Finally.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. In Study 1B. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. travel frequency.3. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. travel frequency. three demographic variables (driver age. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. three demographic variables (driver age. 3. Figure 3.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. Finally. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . Then. 3. Figure 3. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Then. hopelessness. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. In this study. In this study. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Then. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT.
90 . First. Finally. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. In Study 3. Figure 3. Then. This was justified for three reasons. Then. Figure 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. 3.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.3.3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. Figure 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. 3. and (b) taxi experience. 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. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 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 moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. In Study 3. the influence of experience.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Finally. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.
1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. Second.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.2. 3. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.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. 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. Third.1.2.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 . a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.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.
1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2.Table 3.3: 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 total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.2.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2.1.
5. using the same procedures as in Study 1. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. within a 14-month period.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H13: Demographic factors will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.Table 3. 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. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .5 3.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.
Stokols.2 Research Instruments 3. In all cases. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated.time when they travelled. 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.g. 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. Novaco. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Stokals & Campbell.. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. while participants were driving. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection.5. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. 1978). I try to urge its driver to move 94 . by postal mail. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. in the case of Study 3 participants. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.5. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). For inclusion in the study. during a point to point trip.2. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. 3.
to school or to an appointment with someone. Table 3. On each form. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Freeway urgency 14 III. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV.80.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. with a coefficient alpha of . of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. Usurpation of right-ofway No. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B). Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.” II. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”.” “On a clear highway.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.” “While travelling to work (or to school).” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.2.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . In a later study. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. as indicated in table 3. I usually feel like pushing them off the road. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. 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.91) were found to be internally consistent. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.
A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. References to the faster. 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. 96 .2.5. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. 3. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. A sample item is “When I get what I want. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. 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.
” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. 1996).” “When someone really irritates me. Table 3. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. Tanaka et al.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 3. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.2. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. 1982.5. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. or 0.” “If I’m angry enough.” “When people annoy me. anger.5. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. I might give him or her the silent treatment.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.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. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. Beck et al. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. 1993. I may tell them what I think of them. Durham. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.2. 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”. 1974).” “I get into fights more than most people. verbal aggression. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. Of the 20 true-false statements. I may mess up someone’s work.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. if not. if endorsed.3). and five subscales measure physical aggression. 2005.3.” 97 .
92. Cascardi & Pythress. Boyd.2. derogation of others and revenge respectively.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. Three factors – physical aggression. with coefficient alpha values of . 1996).” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me. Shapiro. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. gender. Table 3.2. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3.71 to . of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. age. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales.91 for physical aggression.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. 3.” “I want to get back at this person. Williams. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 5 = “all the time”).6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. 98 .4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser. Snyder et al. 1997.” 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . .5. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.4).5.88 and . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. 2000).88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries. 1997.
(c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. After the briefing period. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. BHS. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Study 1B: PIF. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. in random order.3. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Levenson and BIT scale. In studies 1 and 2. between the two forms of the BIT.6 3. Levenson. BIT scale and AQ. BHS. AQ and HAT.6. Study 1C: PIF. upon request. Levenson. with an e-mail summary of results. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. BIT scale. 99 . (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. BHS. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.
research assistants verbally administered the PIF. 2002). All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study.5. At initial contact. analyses of variance (ANOVA). each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages.0. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. as well. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. rel. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. The PIF was always administered first. 13. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.2 Study 3 For study 3. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Data collection took place in taxicabs. aged 22 to 24 years. Over the course of the trip. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. 3. Levenson Locus of Control scale. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. 8. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT.6.5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. AQ and Levenson scales. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows.3. 100 . rel. For safety reasons. BIT. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. four female final-year undergraduate students. 2004). Two to four times daily. Independent-sample t-tests. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.
2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of 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 H3.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: 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 background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.3: Age influence the level of Hopelessness Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on Hopelessness H6.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.Table 3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .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: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.
1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: The higher the Internality.Table 3.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12. the lower the BIT level H8. 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. the higher the BIT level H8.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: 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 H13.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.2: The higher Externality (Chance).2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.Table 3.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.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 3.7. In the present research. 3. hopelessness.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. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups. 2000).5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 103 .2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. locus of control.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. locus of control. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. In the present study.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. When significant differences were observed. hopelessness.
GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. hopelessness. Also.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis This procedure allows a factorial analysis of variance by comparing means of a dependent variable for groups defined by factor variables.7.7. 3. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship. In the present research. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. second.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.7. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness. In the present research. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. For instance. In the present research. first P scores were entered into the regression equation.3. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. 104 . the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). 3. if so. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. hopelessness. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT).4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.
7 Structural Equation Modelling. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. using LISREL. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. In the present research. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.3. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.7. logistic regression. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . 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. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. on the other hand.7. 710). In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. SEM was carried out.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. 3. That is. 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). each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.
1998). p. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes. For Study 1C. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the better the model is said to fit. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 .. Thus. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. 2006. (1988). 1998) – presently exists. Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. In the present research. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. According to Marsh et al. including: (1) two absolute indexes. (Hair et al. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). If a researcher’s theory were perfect.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. 745). in fact.
3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. and a measure of parsimony fit. 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. 2006). However.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.1 Chi-Square (χ2). an insignificant p-value is expected. 3.7. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio χ2 is the fundamental measure used in SEM to quantify the differences between the observed and estimated covariance matrices (Hair et al. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 3. 1998). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).7. one incremental index. Thus.validation index (ECVI). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI)..10 indicate poor fit. pp. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. 112). the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.7.2 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. the normed fit index (NFI).0. Hair et al. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).00 in which values greater than . 107 .7. the higher the probability associated with χ2. the ratio indicates a good fit. 2006).7.7. 1998.
Values range from zero to 1. an RMR greater than .7. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. the normed fit index (NFI. The index ranges between zero and 1.7.00 being indicative of good fit.00. 108 . Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity. 2006)..Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00 with value more than .6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI. 3. 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.7.7.00.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 3.7. Tanaka & Huba. Thus.00. Bentler & Bonnet. 1985) accounts for differing degrees of model complexity by adjusting the GFI by a ratio of the degrees of freedom used in a model to the total degrees of freedom available. 3.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit. with higher values indicating better fit. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. The index can range from zero to 1.00 with value closes to 1.7.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.
it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. 3. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. considering its fit relative to its complexity.00. Mulaik & Brett. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices.3.7. 1994).7. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. p.. James.00.. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. Like other parsimony fit indices. 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. Although values range from zero to 1.7. In such cases. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. in this case. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.7.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. 2006. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. Values range between zero and 1. Browne & Cudeck. 750). 109 . and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. 2006). It should be noted that. 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.
3. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 37).9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. it is said to be positively skewed. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. in this case. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . p. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 1976. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. In this case. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution.05. If the opposite holds. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. 2000). When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 1956). 1976). 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.7.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution.7. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 3.
Barrett & Morgan. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 111 . 2005.normality of variable distributions. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. Marcoulides & Hershberger. 1997). A commonly used guideline is that.
with results of these tests reported in this chapter. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1 Description of the Samples Age. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). 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. with a mean age of 20.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.9% 14.1% 34.9% Total 441 100% 45.4% 333 62. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.1% 121 22. Table 4.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1).4% 269 27.1. 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. Then.1% 536 100% 54.5% 6.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .55).3% 8.6% 12. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.9% 23.1 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.5% 27. Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.13 years (SD = 1. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.4% 146 14. 4.5% 57.6% 82 15.6% 15.
5 per cent). In Study 3. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. range from 18 to 25).Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.63. with a mean age of 19. In Study 1C. In Study 2.68.9 per cent).35. 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. Thus. 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.89 years (SD = 1. range from 18 to 27).1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. range from 18 to 29). In Study 1A. with a mean age of 20. with a mean age of 20. In Study 1B. 149 taxicab drivers participated. 113 . A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. followed by Malay (27.25 years (SD = 1.53. range of 18 to 26).43 years (SD = 1. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.01 years (SD = 1.
2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. Johor or Perak made up 53.68 1.65.3: 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. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.43 19. Table 4. range from 23 to 73). SD = standard deviation 4. Table 4.3 11.9 2. Kuala Lumpur.53 1. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2: Age. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.1 6.89 20.01 20.63 11.D. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.19 S.4% of the sample.5 114 .7 4.3% of the sample.5 8.25 43. 1.1. The mean age was 43.65 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 . 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.35 1.2 7.2.3).19 years (SD = 11.
4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.6 100 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.2 3.4 0.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.7 11.6 1.8 5.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.8 9.6 2.2 2.9 7.2 17.8 11.4 4.9 0.7 100 4.5 14. As the sample was 115 .0 10.9% of the sample.0 7. Table 4. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4. Perak or Penang made up 50.4).4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 188.8.131.52 3.5 1.1% of the sample.1 9.
The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 2000).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 higher is the internal consistency of the measure. 1978). reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses.2. 4. 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. 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. In the present research.2 4.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally.5). The reliability of the measures used in this research was calculated for each of the three studies and values for Cronbach’s Alpha in all cases were found to be satisfactory (see Table 4.
720 .740 .702 .715 .774 .788 .783 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .783 .772 α .711 .754 .727 .715 .782 .910 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .747 .727 .714 .720 .733 .887 .904 .740 .737 .811 .749 .703 .741 .784 .Table 4.701 .810 .808 .707 .798 .718 .734 .881 α .730 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .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 .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.827 .890 .739 .781 .782 .756 .817 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .738 .735 .808 .830 .906 .742 .786 .824 .
857 .803 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom. with minimal error variance caused by wording.80. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.811 . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.806 .953 .802 4.807 Study 1B . more than . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. In Study 3. depending on which is used (Byrne.10 indicate a mediocre fit.08 to . 1998). 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.800 . 205).903 .6.804 Study 1C . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix. only Form A was used. 1998).3 Validity Test Results In the present research.05 indicate good fit.958 . 1985). 118 .801 .916 . Table 4. ordering or other test construction factors” (p. 1998.804 .6: Parallel-Form Reliability for Form A and Form B (BIT) Form A & Form B BIT Usurpation of right-of way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A . and those greater than .2.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 1998).807 .929 .804 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (. Byrne.876 .80 or above). values ranging from .805 .4. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4.808 Study 2 . RMSEA values less than .
000 .00 1.000 .00 1.97 1. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 . 1992).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 .070 .00 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. indicating good fits.024 .00 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .99 .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 .95 1.000 .097 .98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.00 1. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.92 .98 .00 1.96 1. If the value of CFI exceeds .00 1.000 .96 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .98 1. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1. freeway urgency. Table 4.99 .00 1. externally-focused frustration.96 .089 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).91 .100.91 .00 .00 .97 1.074 . A third statistic.098 .7. 4.00.98 .3. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.00 .00 .000 .097 .00 1.000 .000 .93 .048 . As shown in Table 4. it is possible to have negative GFI.90.000 .00 1.00 .00 (the closer to 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.054 .92 1.99 . RMSEA values in each case were less than .077 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.90.92 .047 .Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that. and destination-activity orientation.97 .96 .061 . it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.2.99 .
93 .97 .058 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.071 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .081 .92 .95 .98 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .085 .95 .96 .3.93 . RMSEA values were less than .93 .030 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately.92 .97 .93 .93 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I. C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.073 .081 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon. Table 4.083 .90.8: Validity of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale – Summary of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study 1A RMSEA Study 1B CFI RMSEA Study 1C RMSEA GFI GFI CFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .063 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.98 .96 .4.92 .93 .052 .100.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).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).2.2.96 .98 .00 .91 .085 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 .059 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.99 .096 .91 .95 1.000 .91 .8. anger (ANG).091 .99 .93 . verbal aggression (VER). externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.
025 .98 .94 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.073 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.97 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.95 .070 .90.92 .090 .98 .97 .93 .98 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.96 .94 .089 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.95 .98 .100. and both GFI and CFI were more than .047 .99 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.3. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.081 .97 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.058 .97 . Table 4.055 .098 .070 . RMSEA values were less than .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).98 .98 .96 .(IND).97 .90.97 .96 .100.088 .98 .098 .081 . RMSEA values were less than .97 .97 .98 .9).088 .98 .096 . derogation of others and revenge.095 .92 .98 .98 .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 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.10).2.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4. Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .92 .083 .97 .
280) .140) . Table 4.183) 1.126(.140) .085 (. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.453(.094 (.403(.064(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.408(.140) -.05).379(.146(.351 (.140) .4. In all cases.052) 1.226 (.356 (.140) -.179(.280) -.875(.186) 1.656(.410(.719(.091(.511(.560(.140) -.192) 1.082 (. 1997).140) -.280) .323 (.241(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.190) 1.154(.064) 1.099) 1.280) .064(.560(.428) .010 (. 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 1.091) 1.280) -.260) .192(.099(.057) 1.105 (.280) .239 (.140) .099(. Marcoulides & Hershberger.107 (.280) -.140) -.332 (.204(.085) 1.085 (..091(.280) -.120) 1.278(.280) . 2006).920(.102) 1.280) -.183) 1.3 Normality.140) .140) -.297 (.280) -.034 (.022 (.297(.280) .195 (.256 (.140) -. 2005..140) .080(.020 (.280) .140) Study 1B Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other) Hopelessness BIT Usurpation right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally Focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation AQ Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression 122 .140) .191) 1. Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.107) 1.037(.179(.085) 1.126(.805(.582(.353(.280) -.219 (.280) .280) .962 (.106) 1.140) .331(.140) -.203(.099) 1.188(.409(.280) -. Table 4.11: Normality Tests.280) .278(.409(.280) -.280) .069) 1.280) . but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.140) -.140) -.140) .297(.140) -. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.246(.
306) -.359 (.098) 1.057) 1.306) -.006(.219) -.423(.417) .417) -.007(.435) -.994(.317) 1.417) .271(.210) -.135) 1.417) -.417) -.195 (.219) -.210) .267) .051) 1.435) -.533) .156(.306) -.497(.324(.417) -.913(.210) .138(.360) .120(.359 (.219) .186(.153) .277(.276 (.210) .153) 983(.306) .417) -.986 (.210) .478(.210) -.915(.104) 1.219) .306) .567(.435) -.214) 1.306) .154) -.247) .799(.210) .366(.306) -.147(.417) -.306) .270) 1.102) .130(.106(.210) .153) .142(.847 (.003 (.024 (.884(.435) .940(.629(.011 (.198(.138) 1.052) 1.469) 1.Table 4.106(.435) -.153) .210) .293 (.110 (.266 (.366) 1.210) -.467(.153) -.713(.913 (.147(.088 (.979(.540(.160 (.306) .153) .719(.567(.070 (.084) 1.153) -.265) 1.187) 1.640(.510) 1.463(.153) .360) -.443(.962(.327 (.106 (.223 (.153) .295(.972(.209(.157) .153) .321) 1.099) 1.959 (.417) .435) -.435) -.153) .805 (.153) .812(.051) .030(.219) -.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 1.435) -.417) .131(.100) .362(.052) 1.153) .101) 1.297 (.128) .053(.022 (.247) 1.048(.064) 1.210) .952(.973(306) .219) .259) .053(.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 .919 (.219) .681(.098) 1.264) .256(.426) .822 (.153) .300(.852(.501(.244(.306) -.338 (.807 (.276(.417) -.962 (.841(.911 (305) 1.360) .375) 1.948(.024 (.978(.537(.715(.414(.306) -.236(.370(.001 (.354 (.451(.153) .128 (.852(.159(.279 (.022 (.360) .113 (.062(.392(.417) -.503(.219) .
However.12. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. if so.3 per cent being hospitalised. For motorcycle drivers. column a). Table 4. column b). 124 .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. column c).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. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. injury occurrence was much higher.12.12: 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 4.13). males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. with 44. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.
Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers.
All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.5 4. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.17 shows means. standard deviations and relationships between distal.15 shows means. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). in Study 1B. Table 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Also. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 126 . Study 1B. However.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. freeway urgency.16 shows means. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Study 1C. crash occurrence and crash injury. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. All these correlations were significant (p<. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Table 4. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence.5.05).4. and destination-activity orientation. VER was not correlated with the total score for behaviour in traffic (BIT) nor with any of the BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration.05).
405** .818** 1 .749** .76 3.00 165. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.566** 1 -.147* .45 6.209** 1 .533** .476 .376** .388** .247** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .191** .391** -.246** .44 4.231** . 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.371** .278** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .2691 6.57 4.96 19.804** .381** .22 3.5 5.027 1 .306** .562** -.52 34.376** .08 2.345** 1 -.396** .202** .339** .342** -.152** .942** 1 .186** .544** -.211** .435** .316** .D.471** .04 26.280** .201** .97 43.625** .340** .516** 1 -.513** .147* -.218** .15: Means.129* .64 7.69 24.58 .23 2.155** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .553** -.482** .Table 4.416** 1 .662** 1 .3455 .88 7.434** .036 .442 1 -.901** .78 .239** .716** .
4624 1 -.516** .411** .55 9 21.505** .847** .731** .520** .481** .763** .462** .509** .48 3.213** .414** .85 9.089 -.56 2 4.366** .380** .00 14 19.067 -.148* .06 3 2.461** .353** .434** .013 1 .172** .286* .213** .555** .550** .200** .240** .84 7.294** 1 .358** .448** .602** 1 .343** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.50 5.41 3.099 .162** .341** .86 6.452** .25 8 18.16: Means.43 12.176* .319** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .335** .438** 1 .53 19.254** .443** .408** .688**.159 -.331** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.762** .430** .48 5.254** .298** .363** .D.Table 4.167** .268** .816** .514** .355** .051 .400** .489**.418** .60 10 16.515** .178** .254** .523** .14 4.584** -.5695 .97 4 4.331** .84 5.697** 1 .9 12 71.407** 1 -.153** .342** .378** .540** .440**.531** .071 .382** 1 -.518** .491** .173* .855** .343** .310** .82 7 13.01 level (2-tailed) 128 .003 .69 8.380** .463** .355** .842** 1 .669** 1 -.5 6 17.401** .225** .324** .22 4.372** .271** .355** .195** .779** 1 -.9 28.337** .028 -.275** .147** .347** 1 -.386** .91 15 27.150** .312** 1 -.213** .393** .157** .65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.334** .45 5 87.103 -.276** .279** .338** .236** .278** 1 -.586** .172** .140* .039 .9 13 46.521** .66 3.103 -.444** .491** .369** .376** .4960 17 .964** 1 .028 .496** .445** .403** .587** 1 -.542** .921** .816** .272** .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 .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .3079 .
343** .364**.292** .259** .209** .377** .151* .221** .615** .189** .03 -.281** .17 -.17: Means.224**.270** .254** .58 9.221** .81 5.69 -.230** .110 .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .70 8.196** .228** .252** .340** .069 .357** .348** 1 6 16.307**.304** .11 12.85 19.305** .033 .00 -.186** .230** .203** .7 -.526** .91 -.219** .183** .258** .230 .9 -.229** .52 7.36 -.150* .370** .304** .18 -.838** .9 -.379** .228** .296** .735** .310** .296** .502** .856** 1 17 43.265** 1 19 25.101**.227** .383** .64 -.166** .423** .278** .202** .192**.368** .199** .141* .530** .05 -.003 .235** .277** 1 8 19.308** .354** 1 5 88.81 -.320** .183** .095 .725** .378** .451** .294** .137* .70 1 2 4.120 .31 -.314** .139** .181** .150* .075 .016 .251** .343** .302** .355** .70 3.17 -.167** .37 6.051 .130** .-181** .057 .270** .749** .446** .210**.Table 4.109 .109 .224** .250** .202** .199**.49 6.082 .745** 1 7 13.424** 1 12 18.210** .402** .97 -.324** .293** .390** .534** 1 18 19.277** .401** .191** .222** .747** .364** .275** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .402** .454** .298** .192** .895** 1 13 26.413** .148** .241** .189** .545** .531** 1 10 16.501 .174** .306** .565** .191** 1 3 .254** .67 7.218** .506** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.288** .465** .428** .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 .387** .D.212** .306** .8 -.076 .292** .641** 1 4 4.271** .183** .313** .216** .131* .106 .98 4.80 17.395** 1 11 65.349** 1 16 67.245** .119* 1 21 .518** .286** .373** .281** .278** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .31 3.162**.158** .42 3.862** .456** .226** .484** .385** .38 5.508** .356** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.246** .392** .259** .342** .448** .151* .263** .367** .483** .366** .264** .103** .78 8.241** .323** .404** .412** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.7 28.193**.275** .345** .291** .081 .095 .038 .86 -.296** .03 5.89 5.422** 1 9 22.804** .235** .277**.592** .268**.185** .481** .588** 1 14 20.434** .338** .311** .178** .476** .166** .516 .261** .422 -.
130 . The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. However. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 4. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. freeway urgency. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. 1B and 1C. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.18 shows means. Similar to observed results in study 1A. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.5. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. externally-focused frustration. and destination-activity orientation.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. all BIT subscales. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury.
219** .183* 1 .025 -.259** .48 5.880 .291** .D.111 -.758** 1 .418** .165 .371** -.072 .750** .323 23.485 11.240** .264** .035 3.374** .Table 4.122 7.4683 .5738 8. 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.349** .334** .614** .043 .290** .535** 1 .376** .081 8.201* .621 3.941** 1 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .428** .232** .269** .76 48.200* -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .18: Means.876** .630** .233** .415** .182* -.413** 1 .413** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .66 1.356** .192* -.30 .66 5.917 3.325** .06 20.139 .314** .167 .251** .50 73.313** 1 .150 -.580** 1 .6803 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.55 175.4966 1 .212* .367** .179 7.409** .14 27.383** .317** .562** 1 .500** .028 1 .226** .
standard deviations and relationships between distal. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other.19 shows means. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. 1B. However. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. In general.5. correlations between I and distal. 132 . proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1C and 2. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.4. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. In this study. Differing from Studies 1A. As indicated in Table 4. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4.19.
276** .025 -.048 .147** .721** .149 .194* .106 .74 15.418** .032 1 .148* .161 -.218* .255** .4 5.072 -.32 7.268** .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .31 8.182* -.43 8.153** 1 .060 -.028 .172** .45 19.121 .0301 .030 .254** -.292** .120 .234** .213** .271** .06 2.023 .263** .149 .200* .236** .D.039 .177 1 .54 11.117 .443** 1 .10 1.072 .225** .128 .054 .156 .095 .65 75.378** 1 .454** .99 10.401** -.018 -.324** .286* 1 .171 .864** 1 .229** .643** .07 8.588** 1 .180** .82 5.373** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.204* .15 32.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .023 -.576** .156 .117 .197* .235** .371** .88 1 .141 .338** 1 .32 3.816** .13 3. 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 12.109 -.561** 1 .646** .3 6.05 3.061 .658** .2000 .12 4.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .071 .521** .11 15.257** .528** 1 .08 15.245** .622** .020 .121 .040 .Table 4.17 20.246** .35 11.114 .404 .173* .116 .636** .261** .618** 1 .193* -.194* 1 .42 66.222* .235** .092** .872** .853** .240** .213** .19: Means.165 .749** .167** .289** 1 .013 .604** .84 2.060 .151 -.275** .178** .117 .807** .091 .152 .166 .070 -.51 3.240** .091 -.150** .82 11.067 .112 -.103 .
01 B=. p<. H1.01.090.135.01 B=. p<.01 B=.095.3 inclusive.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.125.4 was not supported. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.063.315. For the destination-activity factor. p<. and externally-focused frustration.1.278. p<. p<.1.117. p<. p<.180. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.172.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.20). p<. results from the logistic regression analyses in all studies indicated strong relationships between total BIT scores and the likelihood of a motor vehicle crash occurrence (Study 1A: B=.01 and Study 3: B=.034.1). p<. Study 1B: B=.01 B=.088 p<.238.01. These results supported H1.102. p<.202. 4.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.120.01 B=.095. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4.01 Study 3 B=. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.048.01 B=. p<.01 B=.1 through H1.01). p<.229.01 134 .01 B=.063. p<.04.20: 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=.01. p<. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.01 Study 1B B=.041. These results supported H1. p<. p<. freeway urgency. Study 2: B=. p<. Study 1C: B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.080.1.4. Table 4.146. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence.1.6.
095.074.069. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<.165. Table 4.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.038.075 p<. p<.01 B=.087.6.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3. freeway urgency. p<. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01.140. Table 4. p<.01 B=. p<.054. p<.01 B=. p<.158.01 Study 1C B=. p<.120. p<.23 and Table 4.033 p<.01 B=.035.2.21). When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.01 B=. p<. p<. p<.01. p<.01 B=.091. Study 1B: B=. p<.01 B=. 1B and 1C (see Table 4. 135 .035.01 B=.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. Study 1C: B=. p<.01 B=.019.05 Study 1B B=.01 and Study 2: B=.24. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4. p<.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01).118.22.059.064.2 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. respectively). logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. p<.
41 167.35 4.29 21.68 26.03 25.22: 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<.32 28.23: 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<.48 171.88 28.64 26.82 33.98 33.05.73 170.44 178.16 3.600** Table 4. * p<.06 19.82 168.35 155.52 25.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.77 165.64 27.35 33.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.25 5.56 175.30 22.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.31 161.25 25.89 21.77 8.60 185.15 161.35 24.01.Table 4.50 28.98 171.92 157.43 20.32 147. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.184** 136 .
06 160. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. In Study 2.12 154.81 167. 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<.05).05). and those who almost never travelled (p<. In Study 1B.01).01.01).Table 4. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.52 3.14 15.88 167. about once every two weeks (p<. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant.25). motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.05. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.73 24.06 8.77 16. In Study 1C. On the other hand.00 14.12 161.01).05).39 19.73 157.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. 137 .05) and about once every two weeks (p<.060** In Study 1A. drivers with 3 years of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.61 165.24: 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<. * p<.53 17.01 14.00 16.01).29 15.01).
Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.S. N.55 73.52 172.31 78.33 78. However.58 188.74 77. In other words.381 10.68 20. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.50 24.81 175.753* 38 48 27 20 77.81 161.71 168.37 9. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .316 1.97 8.859 11. However. 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.89 20.S) Therefore.27 14.26: 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<.64 24.920 (N.01.63 1.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.Table 4.S.26). it is concluded that Hypothesis 2.528** In Study 3.47 5.80 22.62 10.60 72.50 184.25: 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 2.09 15.81 22.56 3.437 (N.94 20. Table 4. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.05. * p<.55 10.82 162. * p<. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.05.26 10.65 73. N.
the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.6. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. though. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. only H2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. Again. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.1 and H2. 1C and 2. In Studies 1A.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. only H2. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.2. 139 . the lower was the total BIT score. 1B. 1B. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. ethnicity and age – were investigated. In Study 3. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. 4. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. For ethnicity.27). In Study 2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.1 was confirmed.been predicted by H2. however.2. ANOVA results for age. Contrary to the subhypothesis. In this case.
Therefore. N.562. Study 1C t=3.9.2 were confirmed. In Study 1B. p<. however.01 F=19.01 F=8.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.68. p<.81. male 140 .01 F=1. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<. Externality-Chance (C).1 and H3.56. N.05 F=4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. p<. In Study 1B.3 was not supported.05).05 F=11. p<. Study 2 t=3.05.05.S.01 F=1. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. 1C and Study 2.99. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. In Study 1A and Study 2. p<.S.Table 4. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<. p<.2 was confirmed.05).12. Note: Not significant In Study 1A. N. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<. In Study 1C.74. In Study 3.53.01 F=.01 F=2. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. N. p<.6.98. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.01 F=9. Study 1B t=2.01). For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3.00.S. t(250) = 2. H3.44. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).S.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.66. p<. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I). so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. H3. 4.62. N. p<. In all studies.
298) = 3. p<. p<. t(120) = 2.01 respectively).05). ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores.527.05. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. F(2.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.01).041. F(2. Consistent with findings in Study 1A. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<.01. 1C. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores.941.01 respectively. 119) = 5. E and P scores. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.370. 298) = 6. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. 299) = 3.05 respectively. p<.05 and F(2.462.476. 1B.05 and p<. p<. p<.01). F(2. p<. p<. In Study 2.05. F(2. For Studies 1A. In Study 1A.05).503.05 and F(2. In Study 1C. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. t(299) = 2. 298) = 3.566.490. 299) = 5. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. F(2. In Study 1B. 141 . 249) = 3.05 respectively.
in Study 2. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. H4. H4.3. Therefore.1. H5. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others. p<. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.1.3. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores.2.1 and H5. In addition. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.05.2. However. 1B or 1C. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.3. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.3 were supported. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.079.2. In Study 1.1. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. H5. 4. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. so H4.2 and H4.Therefore. H4. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender.6.2. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<.01).3 were not supported. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. 142 .3 was supported. t(120) = 2. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. were supported.3.2 and H4. H4. that age influences hopelessness.
that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.28).239. p<. respectively). p<.01 and B = . p<.1.6. In Study 2. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. respectively). that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.306.312.341.371.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . respectively).290. p<.01 and B = . H6. In Study 1C. p<. 4.6. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H6. H6.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.342.2 and H6. were supported. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness.01. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.01. p<.01 respectively).184.108.40.206 and H6.186. 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. p<.01 and (B = . that internality would influence hopelessness. In Study 1B. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers.01.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. 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 = . H6. 143 .254. p<.354. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. were supported.1. was not supported. p<.01 and B = .3. Therefore.
p<.247.254. with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 B=.05) but not for freeway urgency.S. p<.05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.151. In Study 1C.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<.415. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.349.232. p<.05).01).200.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01 B=.287. p<. p<. H7. freeway urgency (B = .01).01 B=.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .275.232.141. p<. p<. 1C and 2. H7.05).01 B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher the hopelessness scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .191. p<.01). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. H7.287.28: 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=.01 B=.01). p<. p<.4.151. externally-focused frustration (B = .099. p<.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.415. N. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.01 B=.01 B=. p<.01). p<.153.05 B=.288.01 B=.317. p<.3 and H7.153. was supported in Studies 1A. p<. p<.280.254. p<. p<.01 B=.05).Table 4. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. p<.01 B=. p<.418. In Study 1B.151. p<. p<.151.247.157. 144 .157.2.280.01). that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. freeway urgency (B =. p<. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. the higher the hopelessness scores. p<. Therefore.141. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7.05 In Study 1A. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. freeway urgency (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = .01).317.05 Study 1C B=.349. In Study 2.01 B=. B=.05 B=. p<.278.275.191. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 Study 1B B=. p<.05 Study 2 B=.1.
Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).4.3.01 B=. 145 .S.178.2 and H8. p<.01 B=-. Table 4. p<. N.29). that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.044. p<.2. With regard to H8.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. but not H8.01 B=.1 and H8.S. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1.239.01 B=-. With regard to H8.753.077. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.01 B=.1. B=.388. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. that the higher the subscale score for I. p<. N.S.315. p<.229. H8.01 B=. p<.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.3. p<.01 B=. where only H8. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. p<. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2.01 B=. p<.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.297. H8. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2. provided support for hypothesis H8.208. B=.01 B=-. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.1.01 B=.006.339. p<. H8.01 B=-.625. N. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.168.2. the lower were mean total BIT scores. p<.6. p<.336.05 B=. Therefore. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.1. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.
p<. In Study 1C. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores. Further. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high internal locus of control scored significantly lower in total BIT than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control Malaysian-Indian student car drivers. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.01 and F=8. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4.704. F=4.01 (see Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4. p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT.05. F=4. =8.909.272.710. 146 . F=7.01 respectively (see Figure 4.1).581.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.1). p<. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way.2). freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<.
in Study 2.6.05. 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. 1B and 1C. Kurtosis=-. R2=. 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. p<.00 MalaysianIndian 70.327. p<.033.00 64.00 66.00 62.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. 147 . However.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.3). First.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.444.034. F=4.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.05. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. B = . multiple regression showed mixed results.282.
Kurtosis=-. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . F=18. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.01.371). R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. 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 4.01.463. p<.167.3: 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=. B = .459.070. p<.608.4).BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.
01 t=4. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. p<. N.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. t(300) = 2. and t(250) = 2.1.521. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.01 t=2.690. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01 (see table 4.690. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. t= . however.298. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. the H9. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .677.01.210.2. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. 249) = 5.S t=2. were supported. p<. p<. and H9. In both studies. N. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. However.187.05 respectively.S t=2.164.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B.780.05 t=.05 t=4.05 Study 1C t=2.820. 4.Therefore. p<.31). In Study 1B and Study 3. F(2. p<. In Study 1C. p<.S t=1.480. p<. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers.30). p<. N. With motorcycle drivers.01 t=-.01 t=2. p<.467. p<. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups.603. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. Table 4.6.603. 1C and 3. N.032.30: 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. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.S. p<.
155. F=1. p<. Table 4.564. p<. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.398. F=5.S.432.01). N. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.S.01 F=. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C.904.01 F=2. F=1.021. N. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. In Study 1B.804.526. F(2. mean IND scores of Malay.561. N. N.S. N. N.S. In Study 3.041.S. F(2.01). N. F=2. p<.01. N. 249) = 10.S. 299) = 5.31: 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 F=10. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different.763.S.S. F=4.S.01. F=.422. F=1. p<.041.077. In Study 1C. 150 . p<.182. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.01 Study 3 F=1. N.S. F=1.S.567. F=2.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<. p<.05. F=1. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. mixed results were found. p<.521.S.632. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=2. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores.01). Similar to the findings in Study 1B. F=2. N.01).629. 299) = 4.S. 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 3.432.05 Study 1C F=5. N. N.57.
were all supported. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. freeway urgency.1. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. In Study 3. 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. H10.4. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. H11. H10.3 and H11.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. H10.29). H11. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ.6. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. In Studies 1B and 1C. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. 4.4.3 and H11. VER and IND subscale scores. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.2. respectively. H11. only H11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. however. was supported. externally-focused frustration. 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. The higher the total aggression scores. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.Therefore. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. freeway urgency. were supported.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. However. 151 .32). Therefore. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation.
p<. p<. p<. p<.385. and B = .05 (see Figure 4. 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<. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B. p<.370.565.204. F=3.520.183.01.01 B=.048. p<. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. 1B. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores. p<. B = .545.438. but not in Study 3.483.428.01 B=.01 Study 3 B=.505.01 B=. B = .01 and B = . p<.Table 4.380.5).01 B=.491. 1C. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01 B=. However. p<. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A. B = . p<. B = . p<. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. p<. Similarly.370.324.S. p<. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency.01.263. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01 B=. p<. p<. p<. respectively. 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. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS. B = .01.263. N.121. B=.461.235.01 Study 1C B=. Study 2 and Study 3.01 B=.05 B=. Study 1C and Study 3. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01. p<. p<. respectively.01. but not in Study 3.881.01 B=.01 respectively. and B = .32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.229. N.S. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.05 B=. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. Also. With both automobile and taxicab drivers. p<.01 and B = .540.01 respectively. B = . p<.216. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.387.01.01 B=.
297.003. p<.316.271.076.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. p<.00 44. Kurtosis=-.12. R2=. The moderating effect of I was significant. R2=.01. F=81. F=100.00 46. Kurtosis=-.645. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 . respectively.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4.6.100.00 42.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. 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.961.516.172. In other words. Study 1C and Study 3. B=-.929. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores. p<.362.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.01. p<.05.01.01. and B=-. B=-. for Study 1B.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4. R2=.6. p<.131.
Kurtosis=. In Study 1B.431.12.897.6.387. p<.01 and B = . and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .794.360. R2=.01.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4. respectively).694.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. R2=. p<.507.069. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.109.01 respectively. R2=.015. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. F=71.297.01. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. B = . Kurtosis=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.271. F=78. F=94.369. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. F=91.271. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. Kurtosis=-. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.6). p<.01. R2=.01. p<.704.757.088. Kurtosis=. respectively).297.606.117. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. R2=. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. p<.
This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. H12.7).01 respectively.332. 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. H12. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . B = . that the internality. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. and H12.3. p<. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.01 and B = .7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. Therefore.302.1.2.significant. and the moderation effect was not significant.
01 but not on about the derogation of others. 248) = 3.6. 156 . t(250) = 3.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.263.05).05. p<.01.01). that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.314.13 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. Only H12. 249) = 4. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.737.01.343. F(2. 249) = 5.279. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. 4. 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<. p<. p<. and about revenge F(2. Also. t(249)=2.1. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. p<.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. with the sample of taxicab drivers. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported.3. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.05). Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05. However.885. p<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. H122 and H12. p<.
the higher the total HAT scores.379. p<. freeway urgency. B = .1 and H13. H14.01.2. were supported. 4.01. was partially supported.6. p<. externally-focused frustration.307. H13. was supported. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. p<. H14. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. Therefore. B = .01.Therefore. that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. was not supported. H13. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.01.394.364.1. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. p<. on total BIT score were also tested.2 and H14.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C.277. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. B = . the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. B = . (that thoughts about physical aggression.224. p<. This means that.01 and destination-activity orientation. 157 . it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.192. B = . Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression. B = .01.01 and B = . were supported. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. This means that.3. the higher were total BIT scores.3. respectively. p<.01.413. p<. p<.
R2=. Physical Aggression and Revenge.297.-554. B = . also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.297. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.809.085).565. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. 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. 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. p<.911. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.002.4. Kurtosis=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. In other words.05. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.013.072).8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.01. F=57. F=55. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.6.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. p<. R2=. p<.8). and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 .188. Kurtosis=.01.
026. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Kurtosis=. H15. p<.475.6.297.01. F=59.092).246. was not supported. R2=.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.1 and H15.01.33). were supported. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15.01. 159 . p<. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<.Aggression was significant.3. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not 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=. Therefore. B = .294.2. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.207. 4. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. was supported. B = .
S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S N.S N.S N.1.S N.S 1C P.2.S P.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S S S N.S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S S S N.1.2.S N.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S N.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.S S S N.S N.S S S N.S.S P.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.S N.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S S S S S N.S 160 .S N.S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.S S S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S S N.1.S P.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S 3 P.S N.1.S N.S S S S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.Table 4.S S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.S S S S S N.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S S P.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S N.2.S N.S N.2.S S S S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S P.1.S N.S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S S S N.S S N.
S S S S S S S S P.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S S N.S N.S P.S N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S STUDY 1C N.S N.S S S S S P.S 3 N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S P.S N.S N.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S S N. N.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.S N.S N.S P.S N. blank=Not Applicable N. P.S S S N.3.S N.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S= Partially Supported.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.Table 4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.S 161 .S N.S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the Locus of Control-BIT relationship H9.S N.S N.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S S S S S S S N.S 2 N.S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S P.S N.S N.S S S N.3.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S 1B N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.S N.S S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.
3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S= Not Supported.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.S 162 .33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S P.S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Partially Supported.S S N. P.S S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S N. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S 2 3 P.Table 4.S S S S S P.S S S N.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.S N.
93 . freeway urgency. P I. F3 F1. 163 . P. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. F3.02 d. F2.00000 .34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. Hopelessness.34.g.52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. (2) usurpation of right-of-way. F4 F1. F4 F1. Externality Chance (C). F2.093 . F3.00126 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. P.087 .90 110. C. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P.93 . externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors.97 63.7 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 8.060 Note: Internality (I). e. F3. BHS. P.97 . AQ.f. F2. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. All proposed models measured: (1) internality.96 RMSEA . AQ. BHS I.7. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. F2. BHS. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. HAT I. F3. F4 F1.80 104. F4 χ2 49. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI .102 . Externality Powerful-Other (P). Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). 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. C.00111 . Study 2: motorcycle driver. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. C.38 100.068 . two were worthy of further examination. HAT Proximal Factors F1. Table 4. C. P.58 35. 4. HAT I.93 . F4 F1. AQ I.00000 .4.96 . 2002).1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. freeway urgency (F2). Aggression (AQ). C.05522 .045 .00000 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. AQ. Hopelessness (BHS). C. F2. F2. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. F3.
RMR=.22 respectively (see Figure 4.043.94.02. . Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. For Model C5.043.5. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. values were: NFI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=.48.23 respectively (see Figure 4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. C6. Externality (Powerful-Other). Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. 5. RMSEA=. d.97. To aid this discussion. 164 . d. For Model C6. RMR=.destination-activity orientation (F4).98). retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable.f.28 and .42. . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. GFI=. .045. CFI=. but not as good as for C5. with path coefficients = -.26. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT. An alternate model. RMSEA=.35.=24. . GFI=. AGFI=.060.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models. which are detailed in sect.92) on accident involvement.26. .96. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Externality (Chance).f. . For Model C6.92) on accident involvement.29 and . ECVI=. AGFI=.51 and PGFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.42.3.91. and PGFI=.10). Externality (Powerful-Other). subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.14. Externality (Chance). of the BIT score. CFI=.220.127.116.11).=33. with path coefficients = -. ECVI=. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.97. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.97. For Model C5.
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 GFI=.57* Injury Occurrence .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 d. *p<.99 P-value = .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .32* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.79* .63* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.29* Aggression (AQ) .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.f =24 CFI=.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.58* .045 RMR=.92* Accident Involvement .51* .
26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . *p<.77* .50* .56* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.63* .58* Injury Occurrence .f =33 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .29* Aggression (AQ) .96 d.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .92* Accident Involvement .39* .05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.98 P-value = .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.060 RMR=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.31* Externality (Chance) .02 GFI=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.
freeway urgency (F2).95). HOS. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F3. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). Indirect aggression (IND). IND. VER. IND.f.35).078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).00000 . F3.66 153. HAT-P. F3 F1. F2.41. HAT-D. HOS. HAT-P. IND PHY.f. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . Verbal aggression (VER). HAT-D. ANG.084 .00000 . 167 .91 . F3 F1. ANG. HAT-R PHY. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. ANG.=61. VER. IND. F3.081 .94 169.66). IND.91 .73 169. VER.80) on the accident involvement.65 and .10.92 . Hostility (HOS). The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4.66 131. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). RMSEA=. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).91. ANG.13 respectively.084 . Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). ANG. F2.In addition. F2. F4 χ2 108. HAT-R PHY.00111 . F2. HAT-D. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. CFI=. HAT-R PHY. HAT-P. path coefficients = . HAT-D. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. HOS. HOS. F2. d. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.91 . F4 F1.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. It was found that both structural paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought have effects on the Behaviour of Traffic (BIT). F4 F1. HAT-P.41 d. GFI=.93 .00000 GFI RMSEA . Aggression (AQ).078. Angry (ANG).00000 .080 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4.
90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .80* Accident Involvement .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . *p<.58* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .83* .62* .95 P-value = .66* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .69* Anger .65* .05 .41 GFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.29* Hostility . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.078 RMR=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .61* .91 d.63* Indirect Aggression .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.72* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.13* Model Statistics χ2=153. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.
F2. Externality Powerful-Other (P). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. BHS F1. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. BHS I.65 and .7.f. C. F3.07580 . The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. CFI=. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).95 . C.062 Note: Internality (I). freeway urgency (F2). Hopelessness (BHS).047 . C.17631 .36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers.98). path coefficients = -. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.f. P I. F4 39.80 respectively (see Figure 4. p-value GFI RMSEA I. Externality Chance (C). F2.33 33. F3.36). P.058 . F3 F1.66) on the accident involvement. the participants were motorcycle drivers. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).94.86 23 28 23 .94 . RMSEA=.4. 169 . P.2 Study 2 In Study 2.94 .12. d.=28.12 d.06722 .047. GFI=. F2.12). 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. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F4 F1. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4.
89* .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.f =23 CFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.70* BIT4 .78* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .99 P-value = .65* Externality (Chance) .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.12 GFI=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .88* Crash Occurrence . BIT2=Freeway Urgency. *p<. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.83* BIT3 .57* Internality -.95 d.047 RMR=.
externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. F3. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).39 21 . This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.20 respectively (see Figure 4. F2.40) on the accident involvement. C.3 Study 3 In Study 3. F4 50.00524 . I.37). F2.22 23 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. AQ F1.7.94 . The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. F3. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.4. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo).95. RMSEA=. d.97 . P Proximal Factors F1.39. C.93 . The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.f. Externality Chance (ExC). the participants were taxi drivers. F2. F3. 37.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. C.=21.03084 .027 I.f. Hopelessness (H).061 Note: Internality (I). GFI=. path coefficients = -.13).20 and .35265 . Internality and AQ. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT).95 . F4 Outcomes χ2 d.82 28 . C.079 Injury Occurrence I. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. AQ F1. P. freeway urgency (F2). The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. but not Externality. F3.06743 . CFI=.95).061. AQ F1.59 17 . P. 171 .
061 RMR=.06743 N=133 RMSEA=.f =21 CFI=.20* Externality (Chance) . *p<.03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .95 d.13 .053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.74* -.39* Internality -.39 GFI=.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .61* BIT4 .95 P-value = .63* BIT3 .
4.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. Therefore. consistent with path analysis results.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 4.8. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated. Table 4. 173 .38). 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. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 4.8. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.38: 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. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence.39). 2 and 3 are satisfied. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. and.
BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40). 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 4.41). in Studies 1A.8. where the 174 .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. 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Table 4.8.
For motorcycle drivers in Study 2. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. 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. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I.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 . Table 4.
p <. Study 1B vs.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers.162. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.993. p <. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. p <. Study 1C vs. p <. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3.837. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.01. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. 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 4.01. Study 1A vs. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness). automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. 176 .663. Study 1A vs.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. p <.665. Study 2: t(422)= -2.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis.05.426. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs.442.9.01. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(372)= -3. Study 2: t(421)= -4. p <. Study 2: t(372)= 8. Study 1B vs.01.01.
respectively. t(253)= 8.01.01.861.01. “freeway urgency”.261.747. Study 2: t(422)= -4. t(253) = 2. 177 . t(986)= 34.01. 4. p <.01.01. p <. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. t(986)= 6.837. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01. t(986)= 30. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs.01.577. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(986)= 37. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01. and to injury occurrence.01.01.01.614. t(986)= 3. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01. Study 1A vs. p <. p <.211. p <.775. Study 2: t(372)= -7.9.433. p <. t(986)= 7.200. Also.9. Study 1A vs. p <. p <.977. Study 1C vs. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -5.402.687. p <. p <.484. p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(372)= -6. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Study 1C vs.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.01. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1B vs. p <.926.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -7.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.186. and t(986)= 35. Study 2: t(422)= -6. t(986)= 5.801.01.704. 4. Study 2: t(421)= -8.01. p <. p <.
p <.01. 178 . p <.567.01. t(253)= 8.016. Also. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <.881. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. p <.977. and t(253)= 37. t(253)= 31.946.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. t(253)= 8. p <. t(253)= 11. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. p <. t(253)= 39. t(253)= 35.01.01. “freeway urgency”.01and to injury occurrence. respectively. p <.01.982.737.
2. In an earlier study.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists.1). externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. 1991). 2. Evans. 1993. multi-factorial perspective. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. Often. exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . 2002b). 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. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. (1993). They found gender. freeway urgency. Elander et. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.4. al. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. 1995. Elander et al. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. upon examination..CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. including gender.
except with taxicab drivers. But findings were more complex than that. In the present research. Further. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. In other words. 1991). alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. is that factors interact with each other. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. In the contextual mediated model. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. BIT. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. As a result. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship.total BIT score and component scores. the proximal variable. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. All too often. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. hopelessness. 180 . though. if different. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP.
… the word cause has largely disappeared from the technical literature on safety, and for good reasons. Suppose that on a dark rainy morning a young man argues with his wife about the purchase of a sofa, leaves the house late for work in a rage, drives his poorly-maintained car too fast on a badly-designed, poorly-lit curve. Suppose further that he skids, and is killed in a crash with a truck driven by an older driver. It is of little value to say that the death was caused by the car driver’s youth or maleness, the truck driver’s old age, the car’s bald tires, the high cost of sofas, emotional stress, the non-use of a safety belt, inadequate police enforcement, rain or any other of the many factors which, if different on this particular occasion, would have prevented the death (Evans, 1991; p. 60)
Causative factors, then, are difficult to partial out and, it might be argued, cannot really be studied in isolation. For this reason, the use of a model based on interactive relationships between personality or demographic characteristics of drivers and the components making up a particular pattern of driving behaviour, in this case a Type A behaviour pattern, makes good sense. The model proved useful in describing and
explaining the relationship between distal and proximal variables involved in crash and injury occurrence. Personality and demographic variables had significant effects on a measure of behaviour in traffic which, in turn, had a robust association with selfreported crash and injury occurrence. What may have resulted here is less an identification of causes and their prevention and more a framework in which to consider the complex interactions of several factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes.
Within the contextual mediated model used here, a significant relationship was observed between the BIT construct and outcome measures, suggesting that the contention of Papacostas and Synodinos (1988), that it may be preferable to existing measures of TABP, is supported. As has been already noted, a range of personality and
demographic variables were observed to interact with BIT scores and the remainder of this discussion is devoted to a consideration of these findings.
Hopelessness It has been noted by several authors that little attention has been paid to affective
characteristics of drivers (Rothengatter, 1998; 2002; Elander et al., 1993). It is widely accepted that emotions alter attention, thought patterns, decision making and memory (Groeger, 1997). Hopelessness is a personality trait with strong affective and cognitive components, characterised by a sense of despair, pessimism about the future, chronic exhaustion and a deep personal orientation that nothing one can do to bring meaning, zest or enthusiasm to life (Farran et al., 1995). Hopeless individuals tend to believe that nothing will turn out right for them, that they will never succeed at what they attempt to do, that their important goals can never be attained, and that their worst problems will never be solved (Beck & Steer, 1993). They score high on scales measuring
neuroticism and low on extraversion, feel as though they lack physical fitness and selfconfidence and are often dissatisfied with their accommodation, marital state and workplace (Tanaka, Sakamoto, Ono, Fujihara & Kitamura, 1996; 1998). Often people with a high degree of hopelessness feel compelled to do more and more as a way of compensating, feeling as though “they must climb a mountain that has no top and that there is no way to end the necessity of climbing” (LeShan, 1989; p.108). Often these efforts are seen as impulsive, irrational and generally without an apparent goal, and are just as frequently prone to premature termination.
Certainly, it is not difficult to see that internal states arising from this interplay of despondency, perceived fatigue and sense of slowing down while feeling compelled to do more, have a strong potential to influence driving behaviour negatively. In the present research, hopelessness was associated with less cautious self-reported behaviour in traffic. The higher were participants’ scores on a measure of hopelessness, the more they indicated they would be likely to engage in BIT that was unsafe. Specifically, persons reporting a high degree of hopelessness had a tendency to disrespect others’
right-of-way, to engage in risky lane deviations and to commit lapses or violations at intersections or stoplights. Generally, very little is known about demographic and
personality characteristics of drivers who fail to halt at stop signs or pedestrian crossings, commit red light violations or make risky lane deviation manoeuvres (Brodsky, 2001; Romano et al., 2005a; 2005b). The finding that hopelessness is
associated with risky right-of-way behaviour may be consistent with the attention deficiencies, impulsivity and lack of caring thought to characterise persons with this trait (Farran et al., 1995).
When it comes to the relationship between hopelessness and driving behaviour, motorcyclists present some unique differences. Motorcycle drivers had higher
hopelessness scores than either automobile or taxicab drivers. Among motorcyclists, males were significantly higher than females in hopelessness and Malay motorcycle drivers had higher hopelessness levels than their Chinese-Malaysian or IndianMalaysian counterparts. Motorcyclists generally have a high frequency of right-of-way crashes at three-legged junctions, crossroads and roundabouts where the driving manoeuvres tend to be fairly complex, requiring vehicle control skills and focused attention to avoid conflicting movements with other road users (Pai & Saleh, 2008). Clarke, Ward, Bartle and Truman (2007) have also noted that, because of their configuration, motorcycles are particularly prone to ‘right of way crashes’ and those involving loss of control on curves or bends. With the likelihood of this type of crash already fairly high for motorcyclists, the finding in the present study that hopelessness was strongly associated with driver behaviour involving the usurpation of right of way may signal an exacerbated level of danger that needs to be explored in future research.
For motorcyclists, also, hopelessness moderates the relationship between both I and C locus of control dimensions, such that motorcyclists with a strong internal locus of control who score high on the hopelessness trait tend to report that they engage in less safe behaviour in traffic than do motorcycling internals who score low on the hopelessness trait. On the other hand, motorcyclists with a strong belief that their life is
determined by chance or fate and that their future is coloured by feelings of hopelessness tend to report more dangerous driving than do fatalistically-directed externals who are not feeling hopeless.
The relationship between hopelessness and locus of control is complex, in that logically either a high or a low sense of internal control can be a component of hopelessness. Often persons who feel hopeless have a low sense of personal control. They have lost faith in their own ability to achieve some goal and therefore have an image of themselves that they feel has been devalued both by themselves and by other people (Engel, 1968; Isani, 1963; Prociuk et al., 1976). In other cases, however, persons have a high but unrealistic sense of internality. They may feel very responsible for their own fate and may feel that no other help is available to them (Engel, 1971). “In this situation, even though individuals are making some attempt at maintaining control, their goals may be inappropriate or their resources may not be adequate to meet the desired outcome” (Farran et al, 1995; p. 33).
Similarly, either a high or a low sense of external control can also be a component of hopelessness. A person with a high external locus of control may
unrealistically anticipate that help from others or from the external environment will resolve the dilemma (Engel, 1968), thus assuming little or no personal control. However, persons who are feeling hopeless may also have a low sense of external control simply because they believe that others have so frequently failed or frustrated them (Engel, 1971). Farran et al. (1995) called for further studies to explore the nature of hopelessness and other moderating variables like self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy. Future research investigating the process through which locus of control interacts with hopelessness in influencing driver behaviour are needed in particular.
Locus of Control Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour Previous studies investigating the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour
arrived at inconsistent results. For example, Guastello and Guastello (1986) found that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but that there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter (1996) I-E scale. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes, ordinary traffic violations and driving errors, although scores on externality dimensions had no effect. In the present study, locus of control was found to play a significant role in influencing driving behaviour. Drivers who had a strong internal locus of control regardless of automobile, motorcycle or taxicab drivers, reported engaging in behaviour in traffic that was relatively safe. This observation was true for all three groups studied: automobile drivers, motorcyclists and taxicab drivers. On the other hand, those who believed life events to be determined by chance or fate reported engaging in behaviour that was far more consistent with a less safe TAPB pattern. This was true for the samples of automobile and motorcycle drivers, all of whom were university students, but not for professional taxicab drivers.
In short, all participants in this study who were internals reported driving more safely than those who were not; and university students who were strongly externally controlled reported driving less safely than those who were not. This finding is exactly what the general body of thought about locus of control and driving would predict it to be. It has been generally assumed that, because externals believe that they have little personal control over what happens to them, they tend to consciously focus less on the driving task (Elander et al., 1993). In cognitive ergonomic terms, it is as if they are willing to cede responsibility for shouldering the mental workload (de Waard, 2002) associated with the driving task because they consider it to be under the control of external forces.
It might be expected, though, that this effect would be become less pronounced as drivers become more experienced. Groeger (2002) has pointed out that, with more
experienced drivers, more of what they do becomes routine and, as a result, not under direct conscious control. With increasing automatisation of the driving process, the influence of externality over specific decisions and actions that the driver must make would be diminished. Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) described how automaticity
develops as a function of consistent reactions to a particular stimulus, even to the point where there is little recollection of specific elements of the task (Underwood & Everatt, 1996). Of course, there will always be “black events”, or risk-predisposing circumstances, in which the driver switches from automatic to personally controlled processes but, even at those times, drivers with more experience will have better knowledge and quicker reactions due to their broader exposure to prior stimuli (Brown, 1982).
Because more of the driving task is performed automatically by experienced drivers, cognitive attributions about an internal or external locus of control become less important, unless one makes a basically untestable assumption about sub-conscious factors operating on what is generally described as an open-loop control system (Groeger & Clegg, 1997). Given that this sort of system involves sequences of actions which do not rely on feedback from the results of preceding actions before subsequent actions are performed (Bridger, 1995), even if attributional cognitions could theoretically operate at the sub-conscious level, it is hard to envision the sort of mechanism through which they could influence automaticized driving behaviour.
Further, Laapotti et al. (2001) have argued that novice drivers make errors in applying knowledge models at both the lower (vehicle manoeuvring) and upper dimensions (incorporating lifestyle goals and skills) within the driving process (see Figure 2.8; sect. 18.104.22.168). While it might be assumed that errors at the lower level are caused by skill deficits, abrogation of control over the vehicle due to a belief in externality would be a mental process that occurs at the upper end of the cognitive
In the present study. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.hierarchy. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. They were also more experienced (266. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. By virtue of their age and occupation. 20. SD=1.1 months.2 years.7 months. Of course.1.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20. respectively). For taxicab drivers.5. 5.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. Because of occupational demands. SD=.16. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.6 months as licensed drivers. Inclán. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. SD=1. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.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. there are other possible influences. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 .25 years. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.01years. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. For taxicab drivers. respectively). traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.53. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. It appears that belief in chance or fate outcomes may be a more important factor in shaping the driving behaviour of novice or inexperienced drivers than it is for more experienced ones. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. and 36. SD=131. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.3.63. SD=22. as well. SD=11.
rife with bureaucracy. perhaps due as argued earlier. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. when compared to Canadian students. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. 2005). along with selfpromotion skills. spousal selection. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. influence peddling and status-related privileges. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. financial matters and social affiliations are made.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. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. were necessary to succeed. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. The finding that Indian- 188 . Devashayam. Carment (1974) also found. however. 2003. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. In an environment where career choice. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. corrupt practices. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others.
Salih &Young. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . Sendut.5 million in 1991 to 11. and. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1966. but two possible influences stand out. 5.7 in 1996. 1999. including locus of control. 1981). Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians. Again. 1999. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. Nandy. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). 2002.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. as a result. by extension. 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. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits.5% annually from 9.8 million in 1996.3. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. Indeed. Gomez. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 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. an internal locus of control. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. 1999). as a group. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1998.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers The present research found no significant difference between Malay and Chinese participants in any of the three dimensions of locus of control. where Cheung et al. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results.
Lynch. by the enraged driver. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. 2000. 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. feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2008. Huff. Lawton & Nutter. Miles & Johnson. Consistently. Nonetheless. Jenkins. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 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. Parkinson. 2002). in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life.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. Dukes. more recently. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. 2001) In the present research.women’s friendship patterns. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. bringing them closer together in outlook. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 318). 2003. 2001. Miller & Rodgers. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Clayton. 5. 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. King & Parker. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . Oetting & Salvatore. 2002.
Underwood et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. Finland and the Netherlands. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. (1996) and Deffenbacher. during such incidents. 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. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. Petrilli et al. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. Deffenbacher. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Underwood et al. 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”).conditions. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. Further. Parker. physical aggression. With taxicab drivers. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. Oetting et al. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. on a journey by journey basis.
a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). 1997). 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. 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. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. the world and others). although still significantly. as well. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. Such responses. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder 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 . 2006). These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. however. That is.. but not when they involved the derogation of others. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour.strongly. The effects of aggression on behaviour. in the samples studied here. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. In essence.
so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. “in ergonomics. p. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al.. Generally. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. 2004. 401). 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. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein.e. true to operant learning principles. but there may be more to it than that.are determined by chance or fate. 1987. 1994.e. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. 1990. Downe & Loke. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 1979. Hochschild. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. and particularly with negative emotion. It is moderated by cognitive processes. 1977). Similarly. Certainly. Meichenbaum. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. Language loaded with emotional content. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. Novaco. 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. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1995. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. like any other mental task. 193 . 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. or self-talk. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie.. Finally. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). (2003).
5. Dien. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Performance (e. Stein.. 2002. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5. 162). 2004. 2000. Tomkins.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 1997).5. 1999. p. Taylor & Fragopanagos. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. Carretie. Martin. Mercado & Tapia. aggressive emotionality. 2002. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. Trabasso & Liwag. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. and attempting to exercise control over. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. 2005).g. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. 1993).Robbins. 2000.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Making sense of. Lambie & Marcel. MartinLoeches. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Watson & Wan. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. hostile automatic thoughts. Hinojosa. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. 1996. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. In fact.
and perhaps most important. or latent.. 2006). advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. First. 195 . Structural equation modelling (SEM). In addition. the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. p. who in 1970. involved in the analysis. Hair et al. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Second. 2000). leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. Gavin and Hartman (2004). a multivariate technique. 2006). 1998).. When composing a model. 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. explain criterion. or dependent. According to Williams. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. 2006). allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. or independent variables. Karl Jöreskog. 2004. including dependent and independent variables. factors represented by multiple variables. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer.. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors.434). Finally. 2004. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. By estimating and removing measurement error. EQS and AMOS. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs.
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. Hair et al. GFI. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2004) noted that. when assessing the fits of measurement models. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. Shook. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. CFI. Williams et al. and the root mean square residual were included. as suggested by Hair et al. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. (2006). the goodness of fit index (GFI).5. the comparative fit index (CFI). in that they have failed to compare or re-specify the proposed model with an alternative model to test a variety of different theoretical propositions. In the present research. etc) 196 . several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. Shook et al. Therefore.5.e. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. Ketchen. (2004) has been critical of most studies. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired.e. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i.2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. Sümer (2003) added that. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. SRMR. TLI. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature.
it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. Sambasivan & Ismail. Md-Sidin.. 1998). the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. significant p-values can be expected. RMSEA lower than . CFI. As a general rule. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer. 2000). At the same time.90. 1998. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. 2006.. It is argued here that. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2006). Maruyama.5. we would argue. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. 5. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df.In the present research. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. 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. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. 2001. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.. GFI.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem.g.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. 2001. Structural equation modelling should. Hair et al. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. Fit index values (e. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. CFI and CFI) greater than . It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3.
assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. In some cases. Thus. stating that.3). it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . 4. 1C5 and 1C6. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. as suggested by Byrne (2001). two structural equation models. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. 88). they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. statistical. However. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.7. “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.soundness. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. In the case at hand. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. 158). it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. There is some support for this position in the literature. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.1. More importantly. and practical considerations (p. destination-activity orientation.10) excluded the fourth factor. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit.
97 1. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Injury Occurrence 35.91 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.96 1.94 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0. F2.034 97.045 0.96 0. AQ. P.42 11. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. 199 .1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.98 0.97 0.499 0.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.99 0. P. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.Table 5. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0. C. 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.48 30.02 0.909 0.043 129. AQ.060 0.02 0. C.02 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.97 0. F2. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.
When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. but still acceptable. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Nahn & Shapiro. Parker. while for Model 1C6. For practical reasons. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. Some justification for the selection of Model 1C5 over 1C6 is also found in the analysis of the parsimony fit (PGFI) statistic (see Table 5.1). Reason. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. 1996).48. it is 0. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. 1995. However. By selecting Model 1C5. Hair et al. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. Manstead & Stradling. they should be dropped. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. in particular. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. farther along. 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. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. Kayumov. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. goodness-of-fit. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. in this analysis. based on the notion that each variable included may. 1990. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. 2006). Storey.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. Schwebel. 2006.42. et al. 200 .
. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. externality-chance. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. crash occurrence (r = -. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . with five distal factors (internality.45).5. . externally-focused frustration.21). indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.5. on crash outcomes. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. Evans.1). the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . and hostile automatic thoughts). The results suggested that the alternative model. aggression.6. 1991.66). Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. for automobile drivers sampled.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.35. In Study 1C. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.34) and injury occurrence (r = . 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.5. externalitychance.g. 2001.4. freeway urgency. 2003).23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .26. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. . Sümer.28 and .14. Rothengatter. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .28 respectively). externality-powerful other.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.35 and . externality-powerful other.29). As observed from the investigation of structural paths. via BIT.
5. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. had a better fit than other alternative models. crash occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.41). 202 . was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . on the other hand. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence.4.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = .2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. externality-chance.24). freeway urgency. which sampled motorcyclists. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. 5. Aggression.20) and injury occurrence (r = .25). as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. Results indicated that the first alternative model.55).65 and . externally-focused frustration.23) and injury occurrence (r = . crash occurrence (r = .internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores.66) directly predicted crash outcomes. freeway urgency. with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externally-focused frustration. 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. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).
externally-focused frustration. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.5. freeway urgency. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. externality-chance. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. externality-powerful other and aggression). with the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-chance. crash occurrence. with four distal factors (internality. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.3). However. as a result. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. externally-focused frustration.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. hopelessness. their crash occurrence. had a better fit than alternative models. aggression).4.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. such as internality. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. to measure outcome. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. crash occurrence. via BIT. in turn and indirectly. externality-powerful other. Finally. for crash outcomes. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. Distal factors. had no significant effect on BIT scores. For motorcyclists. for the sample of taxicab drivers. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. 5.20 and . the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores. 4. Results indicated that the third alternative model.5.6. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect.5. 203 . had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors.
The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers.6. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. Sekaran (2003) points out. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. 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. chosen at random from taxi stands. To a large extent. In the present research. Huguenin. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. Further. 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. 2005). 204 .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. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings.5. 278279). a total of five samples were taken. 2005. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. four of which were comprised of students from a single university.6 5. however. 2004). that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability.
with a mean age of 20. Since.2%).2). involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.13 years (SD = 1.2% and Study 2: 99.In Malaysia.55). Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.6%. as elsewhere. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Table 5. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. Selangor.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99. Study 1C: 99. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. The most populous state. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes.6% (Study 1A: 99.2 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. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. in Malaysia.31. contributed the largest proportion of the sample. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. 205 . it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. 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. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Study 1B: 100%. Sabah.
9 9. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.5 (4) 4.9 (9) 7.6 6.7 (2) 2.260. In both cases.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.8 6.2 11. 206 .674 1.000 2.200.2: 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) 7.300.2 (1) 3.000 2.6 5.9 (3) 2.503.1 (7) 8. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.396. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.0 4. For that reason.6 0.2 (5) 0.8 (6) 6.387.7 (14) But.2 3.2 (13) 11.500.Table 5.887.000 3.818.000 1. in this case. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.6 2.6 (10) 7.2 7.0 8.000 215.3 (12) 11.188 1. Table 5.880 3.004.0 12.000 1.2 (11) 12.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.807 733.576 2. Not all states have the same number of drivers.150.000 Per cent of national population 26.4 5.100.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists. high-risk drivers in Malaysia. Table 5.5 (8) 3. 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.286 1.500 1.
496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.104 6.34 3.45 9.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.13 6.88 2.735 165.093 5.064 9.35 4.43 2.63 207 .76 3.003 10.96 3.606 24.27 14.92 25.230 266.19 7.251 324.496 187.93 0.91 2.46 8.4 4.635 1.22 17.774 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 12.20 12.920 181.Table 5.041 92.170 13.785 393.37 3.163 10.97 12.19 3.137 698.029 273.75 4.725 70.600 135.70 12.55 7.88 3.561 1.90 5.16 2.212 39.70 3.198 156.588.617 10.19 4.05 2.93 9.490 525.50 29.026 10.768 6.28 3.36 8.85 1.89 3.24 0.24 2.428.68 7.98 0.84 11.467 25.34 11.144 12.
4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.46 5.38 0.33 4.03 4.221 36.856 310.76 3.026 10.43 2.46 14.88 3.679 90.995 233.59 12.37 3.722 255.74 208 .606 24.75 5.305 276.79 13.283 770.93 7.170 13.93 9.49 12.14 7.727 161.66 11.88 2.98 0.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.104 6.617 10.45 2.467 25.656 821.38 4.92 25.064 9.112 347.63 13.003 10.029 273.561 1.63 11.27 14.989 6.133 705.82 9.59 1.15 5.768 6.48 1.10 9.288 444.22 3.02 10.615.35 4.20 15.958 % 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 12.36 8.4 4.144 12.64 1.02 7.Table 5.212 39.28 3.64 2.992 776.725 70.49 0.
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.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . was representative of a high risk driver population. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. Table 5. it can be argued that they were. 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. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.903** . participants came from – or.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .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) . At least on these dimensions. it is possible to say that sampling.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.Table 5. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . at least.4.814** 1 . were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes. Of course.3 and 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.824** .
the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. however. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Hatakka. e. Elander et al. Again. Keskinen. accidents. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . 296). attitudinal factors. unless the variation within the group is very small. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. 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. 5. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Rothengatter. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population.6. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. as in other psychological research. the data has to be disaggregated.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002).. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. 1998. violations and accidents should be linked together. 2001). However. The problem. 1979). in studying driving behaviour. accident distributions by age. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. Exposure. Much important data is available in official statistics. 1998.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons.g. demographic factors.
g. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. Yet. muscle tension. that the score that one receives on a measure of personality or behavioural orientation today was the same some time ago when a crash occurred is often tenuous. the more information is lost through memory lapses. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 1996). therefore. Particularly. as well. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. for instance. The assumption. 211 . 13). subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. blood pressure.g. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. the longer the time period for data collection. though.. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked.. combined interview and observational methods. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al.6. 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. in studies of driving behaviour. In future studies. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. 5. In the present research. Visser and Denis (2004). 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.
Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 5.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. individual standard. and the hypothesis (H2.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. 1997. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.6. Second. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. Mercer. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. First. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. 2002). 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. Unfortunately. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . 1999). in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. as well.In the present research. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. 1971). 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. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s.
eventful or recent. because they have taken place recently. In much the same way. 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. 1973. 2004).. Often. But. in other words. 1974). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. 181). because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. Specifically. this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. p. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. 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. 2003. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. Kahneman. 2002). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. although this has not been firmly established. 1982). 2003). and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. but because they are inherently easier to think about. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 1993. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. 2008). Wood & Boyd. 121). 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.frequency that were used in this research. Slovic & Tversky. frequency or distribution in the world (p. but not always. 213 . Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 1993). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available.
road conditions. where driving histories generally include lengthy. 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. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. Sansone. 1991).. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. during periods of low traffic volume. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . Finally. in their studies of roadway aggression. Similarly. asked participants to record the time of day. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. 2000). traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. Of course.In the Malaysian environment. for example. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. 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. Deffenbacher et al. 2001) . (2003). emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. 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. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. on one hand. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons.
but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 1997). categorical perceptions of driving frequency. Ranney.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. In addition. 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. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.7 5. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. 2005). selfreported measure used here. 1985. Michon. 2004). It was felt. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology. have high information content. 2005). are testable and contain no contradictions. 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. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature.7.studies undertaken.g. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 2004). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . during the study design process. Summala. 5. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. Good theories are simple. In the present research. 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.. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. 1991). 1994). 2002. To summarise. Further research is required.
patterns of relationships. stating that. 294). The answer to this question is possibly yes. 94). debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. The answer is probably not. check facts. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. or represent processes. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . often in graphical form (Grayson. on the other hand. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. 32). if they are modest in ambition. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. 1997. 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”. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. Hauer (1987). p. at times. in particular to structure data. Throughout the development of traffic psychology.
This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. 304). In the present research. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. In 217 . the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 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. Yet. for instance.3). it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. In this case. who argued that.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. and if they are resultscentred (pp. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. 2. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 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. hopelessness. 95-96). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control.
4). agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving.other studies. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 5.3.7. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. psychoticism. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. With several exceptions. The contextual mediated framework. as defined by Grayson (1997).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). 2005) were included as distal variables. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. for instance. According to Ranney (1994). Kerlinger (2000) and others. sensation seeking (Sümer. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 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. not on everyday driving. crash-free driving. anxiety. openness. much current research. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. depression. while still very much a model and not a theory. conscientiousness. extraversion. 2. 2003). competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes.
will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. 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. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. or at least to react more slowly. On the other hand. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. As a result. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. 219 . Following this reasoning. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert.did not test any of those theories specifically. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. Within their proposed conceptual framework. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. Conversely. 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. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. no matter how reliable a safety device. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. They argued that locus of control.
The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Typically. 5. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression. scarce resources for screening drivers.3 Driver Selection. 1982). 1996). Summala. 1997.In the present research. Gidron & Davidson. Specifically. whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. 2002. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. though. 1996). 220 . 2005. once identified. Christ et al. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes.7. task capability (Fuller. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. could be screened out. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. al. 2004). Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance.
Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies.4).4. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. 1). 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. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.7.4. education. and machines are highly intricate (p.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 1957. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. teams of humans. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. or legal intervention. for the last fifty years. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade. 1957). educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5. Slinn. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. 1961. 5.7.5. Unlike 100 years ago. World Health Organisation.7. At the same time. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research.
Sadano. In the case of LKA. (Bishop. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. At the same time. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). 2001). Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. 2005). The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. 2001). or the adaptive automation concept. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks.6). so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. Maggio & Jin. Stough. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled. 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. Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. These have been applied to in-car. Suda & Ono. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. for instance. 222 . 2003). Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Murazami. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. depending on environmental factors.6). The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way.
Parsons. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. 2003.with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 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. Herzog. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. Richardson & Downe. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 1999. Fountaine and Knotts. 2004. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. 1997). in particular to pursue environmental. traffic 223 . Black. 2000). Ulrich.6). Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. changes in traffic speed. Brown & Noy. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 1993. was associated crash outcomes. 1998). A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 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. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. Tassinary.
Proctor. questions of alternative urban structure. 1992). Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 1991). Probably. 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. p. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. Dietze. inexperienced drivers. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. 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. 224 . ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 1996. and whether this information varies according to the situation.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. however. journey purpose or other human factors. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. 309). Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. 1996. however.
and likelihood of. 225 . infrastructure. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. Hi H 1. departure warning. “rumble strips” in expressways.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. etc. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. Reducing conjunction with high lane keeping assist systems congestion and increasing intensity reflective devices (LKA) – these reduce the smooth traffic flow through driver’s need to make wider right-of-way – wider driver information. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). keeping. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes. – 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.Table 5. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. 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. transitions for. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation.1. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. lane road conditions.
traffic lights) safe. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. the systems intersection modification. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. generally pilot”.1. than the safety standard. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. are travelling. 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. H 1. the host vehicle. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. including those in adjoining lanes. point. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. Radar.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. to in-vehicle display terminals.1.. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. 226 .1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. ACC systems provide modifications. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data.(continued) H 1. 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”.
automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. “Speed tables”. 227 . pinchpoints and gateways or arches. signs with calming or vehicles. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. H 1.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. Such devices include chicanes. environment and other frustrating stimuli. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised.3 vertical displacement.1. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. 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.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes.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. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. weather-related road conditions. This information allows drivers to avoid or. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. H 1. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. safety messages. at least. notice of future road construction and notice of public events.1. 228 . prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration. notification of construction ahead.
5. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). The present research suggests that. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes.7. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. 2001). The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. like community centres or places of worship. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. 73). It suggests that. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. teachers or the police. 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. however.4. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. to some extent. 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. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. 229 . Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam.
1030). that “Of these three approaches. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. 2007. from the findings of the present research. The bias of false consensus. First. p. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. They also stated. 265). The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. however. such as visibility of enforcement.4. or an internal locus of control. was studied in a 230 . and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. N6). p.5. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. 1978. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. legal measures change least often. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others.7.4 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. Second. 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. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective.
sample of drivers by Manstead. is allowed to occur in a Just World. on the other. 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). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Azjen & Fishbein. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 1992). 2001. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. Parker. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 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. 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 .” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). after all. Reason & Baxter. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. By doing so. 1991. 498). Stradling. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Ajzen.
or not adhere. Similarly. an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. to traffic regulations. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).drivers’ decisions to adhere. 232 .
In doing so. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 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. In the present research. age. as proximal to the crash outcomes. ethnicity. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. Results have indicated that.g. Iverson & Rundmo. 2003. 233 . Sümer. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. when risky. Sümer et al.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. 2002. locus of control. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. 2005. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner.. as expected. it was concluded that driver experience. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. A contextual mediated model. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e.. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. hopelessness. gender.
In most cases. Further. Hoyt. task capability (Fuller. In the present research. or external locus of control. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. it is argued here. 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. like Brown and Noy (2004). the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic.g. However. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. 1986. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. as well as statistical grounds. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. 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. 1973). consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors.In the current literature.. the best fit usually implies the best model. Harrell. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. 1982). 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. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. This is Of the variables studied. 1974). and accident risk (e. 1995. Montag & Comrey. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1987)..
Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. For example. Rothengatter. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). road engineering and ergonomics. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. 1998. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. 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. in combination. Additional studies of the role played by hostile automatic thoughts and cultural influences in moderating the effects of aggression on safety-related behaviour will provide a better understanding of psychological processes and may offer new insights into the treatment of dysfunctional driving behaviour. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Huguenin.. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. they 235 . However. 2005. as well. cultural anthropology. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Several authors (e.aggression were observed. Groeger & Rothengatter. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence.g.
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. injuries and death. Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. educational and enforcement spheres. 236 . 313). but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. A uni-disciplinary approach is not sufficient to generate or integrate the range of actions that must be undertaken to effectively bring about improvements to the roadway safety problem in Malaysia and elsewhere. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002).form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. management. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. Indeed. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. In the present research.
 Abdul Rahman. and Pederson.  af Wählberg. H. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. 5. (2002).T.. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 473-486. R.R. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. Journal of Safety Research. T.E. Bahrain. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. N. Puzzles & Irritations..H. L. K. R. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (1979). (2007). (2005). M. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. 169-177.  Aiken. Musa. Mohd Zulkifli. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Radin Umar. Mohd Nasir. Drinking and driving: intention. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 10(2). S. A.  Abdullah. Subramaniam.  af Wählberg. A.  Åberg. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights.A.E. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. A. Accident Analysis and Prevention. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC).. 35. 1867-1874.S. (2003). (1993).REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. 581-587. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 289-296. H.  Abdul Kareem. 31-39. P. 38(5). (2002). MY: Pearson. L.B. Petaling Jaya.  Adolphs.  Ahmad Hariza. and Kulanthayan.. M. (2003). individual crash level approach. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. P. 25. Neural systems for recognizing emotion. and Law. 12. (1999). (2003).H. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.. 237 . A. and Anurag. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. Psychological Testing and Assessment. Third edition.
Day. J. J.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. M. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Ajzen. S. and Beckmann. A. (1985). and Tubré. London: John Wiley & Sons. (2001). (Eds.  Armitage.T. (Eds. Age. Learning. 7. 179-211. (2005). 47..105-110. Biometrics. I. (1997). and Fishbein.  Ajzen. 10(6). M. 10. Social. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. In Kuhl. and Kecklund (2001).E. T. 340-342. M. Journal of Sleep Research..  Ajzen.J. 187-195.  Åkerstedt..  Ajzen. T. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Annual Review of Psychology.D. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness.) European Review of Social Psychology. Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup. (1987). (2003). S.  Armstrong. 52. (1952). and Christian. 623-633. 303-313. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners.H. Nature and operation of attitudes.A. 238 . and Hewston. The theory of planned behaviour. I. Human Factors. W.J. (2004).G. Edwards.  Arbous. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. 50(2). 23. Tubré. 404-415. 27-58. Women’s Studies International Forum. A. J. Personality. In Stroebe. J. Current Psychology: Developmental.  Arthur. and Kerrich. Bell.C. 33(3). E.  Archer. I. W. 291-307. gender and early morning accidents. B. (2001). Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. C. Aggressive Behavior. J. and Haigh. A. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.  Amin. I. 22(3). (1991).
J. (1997).  Aschenbrenner. and Carbonell Vaya E.  Aylott. In Trimpop. R.  Ballesteros.-E. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. 1173-1182. Arthur. 14-29). 2(4). (1994). M. Boston: Kluwer. S.  Barjonet. F. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. 239 . M. (2001).  Barjonet. Retrieved April 4.S. 2007 from http://www. and Tortosa. K. Manila: Philippines.D.  Bakri Musa. October 18). P.F. 34. F. T. and Carson.-E. In Rothengatter. and Kenny. P. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. (1998). (2005.L.  Baron. and Alexander. 89-105. Accident Analysis and Prevention.A. (2002). (Eds. 4(2).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp.M. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 231-234. R.. In Barjonet. and Dischinger.bakrimusa. Human Performance. and Biehl.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. W. (Eds. P. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. (2002). (1986).C.  Austin. Wilde.M. When hope becomes hopelessness.A.  Asian Development Bank (2005). Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. Barrett.. G. R. 279-284. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia)..) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. 21-30). and Tortosa. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. strategic and statistical considerations. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. 51(6). 34. Groningen.M. D. R. (1991). NL: Styx. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. P-E. GJ.31-42. B.V. (Ed.
) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. Journal of the American Medical Association. (1996). and Weissman.T. (1999).H. and Berg. 240 .J. A. 5-37.  Bentler.T.F. A.E. D.T. A. D. Kovacs. and Simons-Morton (2002).  Beck. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. D.A. (2005). (1993). (Ed. and Bonnett. Lester. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. K.T. Hartos.M.G. Weissman.  Beck.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. J. New York: Brunner/Mazel. In (Flinders. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. Palliative Medicine. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. (Eds. New York: Meridian.  Belli. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. (1980). A.. Cognitive therapy. 149-178). Hostility and Violence.  Beck. 218-229).. 88..S. (pp. P. (Ed.C. (1993). 234-240. (1974). and Mills.T.T. (1987a). Cognitive models of depression. Health Education and Behavior. E.G. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. A. 29(1). R. D.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. 1146-1149. 157-179). 234(11). (1987b). G. In Zeig. New York: Teachers College Press. 588-606. R. Theory: the necessary evil. In Rubin. J.  Benzein. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly.F. A..K. The level of and relation between hope. 42  Becker. and Trexler. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. 19. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. M.C. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.  Beck. and Steer. L.  Beck. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. A.. (1976). Psychological Bulletin. H. A.T. and Loftus. A. E. A.  Beck. (1975). Beck. 1(1). 73-84.  Beck.
(2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern.  Blumenthal. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. Stress and Coping. A. Williams.  Bernama. (1995). (2006).S. 45(1).  Boyce. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity.. (1994). March 12).J.S. B. 2007 from http://www..B. K. (1984). R. Journal of Personality Assessment. and Geller. T.C. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Psychology and road safety. Introduction to Ergonomics. 38(3). M. (2001).  Bridger. Talley. 241 . Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2006).  Bina.A.bernama. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Accident analysis and Prevention. F. 44-51. T. E. New York: Routledge. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. Benjamin. A. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Applied Ergonomics. Malaysian National News Agency. (2002). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity.  Blasco. (1981).  Blacker. 132(5). Psychological Bulletin.php?id=185148. 15(1). (2006.E. 751-777. Retrieved March 30. McKee. J.. S. S. R..com. and Valentine. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.D. F.my/bernama/v3/printable. 39-55. and Bonino. D. 37-40.. M. 53.A. 37. Graziano. 313-322. J. 43. Managing the high costs of road deaths. 34(1). and Shimmin. 391-399. Anxiety.  Boff. and Haney. New York: McGraw Hill.  Bettencourt. R. 95-104. 472-481  Binzer. H. Ben-Zur.
(Eds.E. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. W. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions.G. Schlundt. C. (1997). Amsterdam: Elsevier.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. R.D. I. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1992). (2000). How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.D. T.W. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia.S.  Bunnell. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Journal of Applied Psychology. I. Haliburton. 445-455. G. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. 242 . and Cudeck. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity. Ergonomics. 4(4).  Brown.. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 9-19).  Burns. 32(1). (Eds.P. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 27(3). and Huguenin.  Brown. 641-649.  Browne.. (2004). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures.D. R.  Brown. 219-241. and Noy.. Goldzweig. and Ghiselli..W. Personality and Individual Differences. T. (1982).  Brown. 267-278. R. and Wilde. T.C.C. Levine. Accident Analysis and Prevention. P. 318-330. International Journal of Educational Development. 18(2). Briggs. In Rothengatter. In Rothengatter. I. Political Geography. N.C.K. E. D. 105-124. (2005). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. (1989). and Warren.E. 37(4). C. (2002). R. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. observational data and driver records.S. 24(1).  Brindle. M. 24. (2007). 345-352. 14. 29-38  Brodsky. 21.J. (1995). G. 20-23. I. and Carbonell Vaya. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. E. (1948).M.  Brown. W.
and McIver. (1999). J. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers.L. and Cortes.. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL.  Carsten. 35(6). Human Brain Mapping. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. G. Cohn. 343-349. Hinojosa. 31. In Bohrnstedt.A. Oxford: Elsevier Science.. 22. E.. M. D. Environment and Behaviour. R. Ergonomics. 9.F. Mercado. (2004).M. Martin-Loeches. Applications and Programming. 63-65. 243 .  Byrne. W.H. (Eds). 21.. (Eds. 15981613. (1981). T. M. Parada. M. 45-50.  Carment. 290-299. (2004).  Cackowski. & Santos. L. and Durkee. T. Accident Analysis and Prevention.G.. (1998). Multiple perspectives. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. M.  Byrne. Applications and Programming. O. E.W. and Tapia. (2003). J.. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.W. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. 65-115).P. (2002).  Caird. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Journal of Consulting Psychology. J. and Warren. (2000). A. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. (1974). B.  Buss. 47(15). and Kline. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. L. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. Buss. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. E.J. (1957). B. and Borgatta.  Byrd. A. J. J. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. Internal versus external control in India and Canada.L. F. 736-751. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A. J..H. In Fuller.  Carretie. International Journal of Psychology. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures.K.D.A. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. and Nasar.  Carmines. (2001). Gonzalez.
Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. 2007 from http:www.H. Howard. 10(2).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Nash. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. P. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10. N6.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007).D.  Chalmé. The Star. Brazil. R. T. 41. R. Sunway Campus. H. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. What are we allowed to ask. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury.  Cheah. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. In Rothengatter. R. Visser. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Matto Grosso do Sul. D. 467-477. Cheung. (2006). 61-71).-H. Amsterdam: Elsevier. W. 2008 from http://www. March 20-22. 109-122. (1996).M. Taiwan. Malaysia. and Lim.ghipr. and Yeh. S.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005).  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001.0.F. F. and Denis..ictct.. 557-562. S. M. (2007). Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. (1985).P. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 21(4). Retrieved March 31. J. (2004).-L. Carver. Monash University. November 12).G.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan.  Chaplin. T. New York: Dell.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN.  Chang. and Huguenin. Personality and Individual Difference. (Eds. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. Y. Retrieved October 15..-H. (2000).pdf 244 .  Cheung. (2007. Driving: through the eyes of teens. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. R. Dictionary of Psychology.W. J. Kuala Lumpur. November). Campo Grande.
Towner. Chioqueta.. and Ward.’ Injury Prevention. M. Y. Driver selection and improvement in Austria.P.M.  Clarke. )2007). R. Bartle. (2005). 255-274).T. hopelessness and suicide ideation. 39. A. Bakou. Amsterdam: Elsevier.  Chliaoutaks. (2004). 245 . 679-684. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.  Christ. R. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Cairns. C. 22(3). and Truman.S. 28(2). C.. C.  Chmiel. and Lee-Gosselin. and Huguenin. 1283-1289.D. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. T. Personality traits and the development of depression. (1996).makeroadssafe.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res. (Eds. G. Tzamalouka.G. Personality and Individual Differences. H. Koumaki.. Bradshaw. S. E. Kasniyah. B. Ward. C. Safety at work... June). (2000).. D. 377-390). N. and Darviri. Panosch. A. (Ed. and Bukasa.E.pdf  Conrad. P. S.  Chipman.. R. 196-203. (1992). MacGregor. Time vs.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. (1999).) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp.. M. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.. N. (2007). 38(6). Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. P. 24(2). Accident Analysis & Prevention. 193-200. Retrieved December 7. Demakakos. and Costello. London: Wiley-Blackwell.. 974-981. N. T. Journal of Safety Research. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. Smiley.D. V. Helmets. In Rothengatter. P. Lamsudin. French... How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. Cancer Nursing. and Stiles. 125-129.C. 33. In Chmiel.. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. 13(2). J.L. and Chan..  Christie.  Chung. M. 431-443. 2007 from http://www. N. P.K. W.
246 . G. and Patel. 263. P. October 18).  Cresswell. Cooke. Journal of Personality Assessment. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. 10. p. and Froggatt. J. N.M. (2002). 152-171. R. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.com. and Huguenin.M. (1961). (Eds. (1995). 45-62. D. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system. 161-175). K. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.  Crittendon. Amsterdam: Elsevier. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.A.thestar. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland.T.  de Waard.S. and Durso. (1991). 20(5).. Mental workload. (2005). and van Koppen. P. and Santos. P.  Cozan.J. 2007 from http://blog.  Davin Arul (2005. and McRae. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing.  Davies. 64.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. F.L. 21-50. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. (2006.F. In Fuller. R.W. The Star.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. H. R. Legal and Criminological Psychology. T. (1962). N48  de Raedt. February 8).asp?id-7003. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 98-117. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). D. W.A. L.  Crombag.my/permalink. American Psychologist. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.  Costa. 16(5). Applied Cognitive Psychology. W. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. R.D. 10. (1996). Retrieved April 5.R. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. 5(1).J. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Accident proneness. Wagenaar. 95-104.
J. J. Individual differences. J.  Deffenbacher. Filetti.  Dewar. Oetting. and Morris. 50(2). Journal of Counseling Psychology. P.L. Oetting.A.L. 27(4)..  Devashayam. 41. 26(1).) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. and Olson. R. K..L.  Delhomme. E. 28. Oetting. 14(12). E. In Dewar. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving.R. R. (1997). R. R. R. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. Ergonomics. E. (2004). T. Women’s Studies International Forum.L. N. Cognitive Therapy and Research.E. D. E.  Dewar. Age differences – drivers old and young.L. Petrilli.T. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. 47. 5-17. E. In Rothengatter.R.R. and Ameratunga. (2002b).D.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (2003).  Deffenbacher. L. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. (2000). (2002a).. The expression of anger and its consequences. (1996). Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.. (Eds.S. S.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. and Meyer. 729-730. 209-233).  Deffenbacher. de Waard.L. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. In Dewar.S. and Olson. J. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. (2003). Richards. P.F. (Eds.C. Lynch. J. and Oetting.  Dharmaratne. R..B.. E.. R. M. P. 373-393. (1999). and Swaim. S. Amsterdam: Pergamon.D. Lynch. T. Behaviour Research and Therapy. Lynch. and Salvatore.W. and Carbonell Vaya. R..S.  Dien.N. E. Lynch. (Eds.L. 575-590. and Brookhuis. R. 111-142).S.R.E.  Deffenbacher. 1-20. Tucson. 123132. On the measurement of driver mental workload. 161-171). T. 383-402. R. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Huff. T. (2005). (1998). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Tucson. 247 . 333-356. Personality and Individual Differences. 34. C.E. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Sungai Petani.. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. W.S.M. and Rodgers. 14(2). Dietze. J.E. 33. M.Y. N. ‘Fatalism’. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. S. H. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. T. A. Knowledge transfer. Jenkins. M. and Mayser. A.  Dobson.  Dodge.  Draskóczy.L. Clayton. 248 . (Ed.  Dukes.  Dula. 197208. E.G.D. Bahar. Powers. 53.. In Khalid. 1146-1158. and Carbonell Vaya. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.. C. and Coie. and Che Doi. S. (1999). Ball. 525-535.  Downe.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. T. Ebersbach.A..  Downe.R. November). and Loke. J.G.. (Eds. A.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.T. In Dorn.L.P. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. (2004.. Social Science Journal 38. 85-92). R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Asian Institute of Medicine. 31. Women drivers’ behaviour.. (2007. (1997). C. M.. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model.E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. negative emotional and risky driving. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). 323-331. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Ballard. Malaysia. In Rothengatter. R. (1987). M.. 263282. (2003). C. M. S. K. T..L. Lippold. Mohd Yusuff. Kedah. Nigeria. Lim. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. December). L. (2003). and McFadden. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.a. Science & Technology. Brown. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Health Education Research. L.A. R. (Eds. D. (2001). Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. (1999). Miller. 223-231).  Dixey. 278-285)..
New York: Academic. and Turecki. Annals of Internal Medicine. Czech Republic. 159165. Ménard-Buteau. 50(13). C. (1968). A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex.. (2002). (1971).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp.  Elangovan. Psychological Bulletin. (2005). 113.D. Journal of Transport Geography.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.  Elvik. Dumais. (1962).. (1993). (2005). March 20-22. Brno.A. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men. Causal ordering of stress..  Dunbar. Kim.L. (1996). 293-300.R.  Edwards. and French D. A.  Ellis. (Ed. R.  Engel.pdf  Engel.ictct. Lesage. 22(4). (2001). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. West. 69. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct. 17-26). Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior.B. 2007 from www. 4(3). A.M.L.. A. J. G. In Underwood. Lalovic. 771-782. A. In Lefcourt... Retrieved December 25. 74. H. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. Annals of Internal Medicine. Leadership and Organizational Development.. Boyer. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. R.(Ed. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress. (1984). G. 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. J..org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. N. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. R. Chawky. C. 201-22. 279-294. A. G. J. G. 209-306).. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. satisfaction and commitment. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.  Elander. 249 . 838-844.
23(5). (1996).  Farmer. p. 784-786.. 6(1). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. E.6bil losses yearly. Risk Analysis.. (1939). Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. M. S. L. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Patterson. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. C.  Farmer. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety.M. E. E. London: Medical Research Council. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. 81-94. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. Traffic Safety and the Driver. 38). A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.G.000 and RM5.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1991). E. L. (1929). (1926). and Chambers. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.  Evans.  Farmer. and Chambers. (1986). (1984). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.A. 19-36. N22. Klesges. L.G. L. London: Medical Research Council. Hadley. E. L. 84). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.. and Chambers. Barnard.  Ey. S. (1995). New York: McGraw Hill. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. G. 86(6).J. Herth.A.  Evans.S. 250 . American Journal of Public Health. (2000). Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs..G.  Evans. and Alpert.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. London: Medical Research Council. The Star.M.M. J. 421-435. 16. (1976). Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Ferguson. December 10). Evans. and Popovich. K.  Farran. E. W. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. B. 55).
Belief. Malays and Indians compared. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of American College Health.H. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. (2004). 251 . 38(5). 47-55.W. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. 12(4). and McCartt.. S. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Intention and Behavior..  Fishbein. S. I. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior.  Friedman. Teoh. and Barron. S.18(4). In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. P.R.  Forward.A. 461-472. August). A. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. and Rosenman.  Firestone. Recherche Transports Sécurité. M. Accident analysis and Prevention. 137-145. San Francisco.T. R. In Fuller. R.  Frazier. R. and Bragg. R. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley. (1986). causes. consequences and considerations. M.P. R. 9. Cross Cultural Management. Ferguson. (1998. R. (2005). (1975). 63-77.  Forward. (2000). R. Women and traffic accidents. I. (2002). Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese.  Fuller. B.A.A. P.  Fuller. Attitude. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. H. and Santos. 115-134. and Seiden.W. Tix. 51(1). S. R. New York: Knopf. (2007).  Finn. (2005).. and Richardson. 37. Linderholm. E. and Ajzen..  Fuller. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Human factors and driving. K. 77-97). (2006). 207-213. (1974).  Fontaine. J. 66. A. 289-298. 412-426.E. S. (1990). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. and Järmark. Journal of Safety Research 38.
Amsterdam: Pergamon. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka.T.E.T. (2006). D. N. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.W. E.. 33(6). Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. MY: Sage. A. (1977). Mutu. 203-220. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. C. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. E. G. 109-128. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. 252 . 12(4). Fuller. (1949). Journal of Applied Psychology.  Gidron. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.A. and Pender. S. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. 487-491. Y.. and Blanchard. A. McHugh. E. Journal of Food Products Marketing. (2006). 58(1). and Mahbob. Stress and Coronary Disease. Behavior Paterns. E.B. 1233-1248.C. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. T. Y.  Garg. 19. (2006).B.A. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components.  Ghiselli. T. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. K.E. A. In Rothengatter. Rajasingham-Senanayake. 16(5). Aggressive Driver. 109-116. 6. and Hyder.  Galovski.  Glass. R.  Graham.  Ghazali. E. Ergonomics. Petaling Jaya. Hillsdale. (Eds. 13-21.D. 167-202). E.  Grayson.. (1999). Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. Nandy. R. European Journal of Public Health. C.. Gal. N. and Carbonell Vaya. and Syna Desevilya. L. and Brown. and Gomez. (1996). (1997). (2003). (1999)..S. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 42(9). Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Malta. J. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry.. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée.  Gomez. and Davidson. (2008). 540-546.  Gidron. 93-96).S. H. D.
 Gregersen, N.P. and Falkmer, T. (2003). In-vehicle support systems and young, novice drivers.
In Dorn, L. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. 277-292). Aldershot UK: Ashgate.
Green, P. (2002). Where do drivers look while driving (and for how long)? In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 77-110). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges.
Greenwald, A.G. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1988). On the use of ‘theory’ and the usefulness of theory. Psychological Review, 95, 575-579.
Greenwood, M. and Woods, H.M. (1919). The incidence of industrial accidents upon individuals with specific reference to multiple accidents. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. 4). London: Medical Research Council.
Greenwood, M. and Yule, C.V. (1920). An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings, with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or repeated accidents. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, 255-279.
Griffiths, M. (2003). Communicating risk: journalists have responsibility to report risks in context. British Medical Journal, 327, 1404.
Groeger, J.A. (1997). Mood and driving: is there an effect of affect? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.335342). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. (2000). Understanding Driving: Applying Cognitive Psychology to a Complex Everyday Task. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Groeger, J.A. (2002). Trafficking in cognition: applying cognitive psychology to driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 235-248.
Groeger, J.A. and Clegg, B.A. (1995). Automaticity and driving: time to change gear? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.137-246). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Groeger, J.A. and Rothengatter, J.A. (1998). Traffic psychology and behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1(1), 1-9.
Guastello, S.J. and Guastello, D.D. (1986). The relation between the locus of control construct and involvement in traffic accidents. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 120(3), 293-297.
Haber, R.N. and Haber, L. (2002). Why witnesses to accidents make mistakes: the cognitive psychology of human memory. In Dewar, R. E. and Olson, P.L. (Eds.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 663-695). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges
Haddon, W. Jr. (1963). A note concerning accident theory and research with special reference to motor vehicle accidents. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 107, 635-646.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1970). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Paper presented at the 10th International study Week in Traffic and Safety Engineering, Rotterdam, 7-11 September.
Haddon, W. Jr. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. Journal of Trauma, 12, 193-207.
Harrell, W.A. (1995). Factors influencing involvement in farm accidents. Perceptual Motor Skills, 81(2), 592-594.
Hauer, E. (1987). The reign of ignorance. Proceedings of Conference on Transportation and Deregulation and Safety.. Chicago: Northwestern University.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Haight, F.A. (1986). Risk – especially risk of traffic accident. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 5, 359-366.
Haight, F.A. (2004). Accident proneness: the history of an idea. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 421-432). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hale, A.R. and Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hampson, P.J. and Morris, P.E. (1996). Understanding Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harbin, T.J. (1989). The relationship between the type A behavior pattern and physiological responsivity: a quantitative review. Psychophysiology, 26(1), 110-119.
Harlow, L.L. (2005). The Essence of Multivariate Thinking: Basic Themes and Methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Harper, J.S., Marine, W.M., Garrett, C.J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S.R. (2000). Motor vehicle crash fatalities: a comparison of Hispanic and non-Hispanic motorists in Colorado. Annals of Emergency Medincie, 36(6), 589-596.
Harré, N. Foster, S. and O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(Pt 2), 215-230.
Harris, J.A. (1997). A further evaluation of the Aggression Questionnaire: issues of validity and reliability. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 35, 1047-1053.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregerson, N.P., Glad, A. and Hernetkoski, K. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 201-216.
Hattaka, M., Keskinen, E., Katila, A. and Laapotti, S. (1997). Self-reported driving habits are valid predictors of violations and accidents. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 295-304). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians., G.H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aethetics. In Kellert, S.O. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. 9 (pp. 138-172) Washington DC: Shearwater Books / Island Press.
Henderson, J.T. (1976, April). Hope and self-destruction: the ratio of external threat to feelings of personal competence on the underlying continuum of self-destructive behavior. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwester Psychological Association. Albuquerque, NM.
Hernetkoski, K. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Self-destruction in Finnish motor traffic accidents in 1974-1992. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(5), 697-704.
Herzog, T.R., Black, A.M., Fountaine, K.A. and Knotts, D.J. (19970. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restoratie environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,, 165-170.
Hewstone, M. and Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 614-623.
Hochschild, (1979). Emotion, work, feeling rules and social structure, American Journal of Sociology, 85, 551-575.
Hofstede, G. (1998). A case for comparing apples with oranges: international differences in values. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 39, 17-29.
Hofstede, G. (1999). Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holder, E.E. and Levi, D.J. (2006). Mental health and locus of control: SCL-90-R and Levenson’s IPC scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(5), 753-755.
Holzmann, F. (2008). Adaptive Cooperation Between Driver and Assistant System: Improving Road Safety. Springer.
Hong, I., Iwasaki, M., Furuichi, T. and Kadoma, T. (2006). Eye movement and driving behavior in curved section passages of an urban motorway. Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, 220(D10), 1319-1331.
Horswill, M.S. and Coster, M.E. (2002). The effect of vehicle characteristics on drivers’ risktaking behaviour. Ergonomics, 45(2), 85-104.
 Howarth, C.I. and Gunn, M.J. (1982). Pedestrian safety and the law. In Chapman, A.J., Wade,
F.M. and Foot, H.C. (Eds.) Pedestrian Accidents (pp. 265-290). Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hoyle, R.H. and Robinson, J.C. (2004). Mediated and moderated effects in social psychological research: measurement, design and analysis issues. In Sansone, C., Morf, C. and Panter, AT. (Eds.) Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp. 213-233).
Hoyt, M.F. (1973). Internal-external locus of control and beliefs about automobile travel. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 288-293.
Hsieh, T.T., Shybut, J., and Lotsof, E.J. (1969). Internal versus external control and ethnic group membership. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 122-124.
Huguenin, R.D. (1997). Do we need traffic psychology models? In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 31-40). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Huguenin, R.D. (2001). Models in traffic psychology. In In Barjonet, P.-E.. (Ed.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 31-59). Boston: Kluwer.
Huguenin, R.D. (2005). Traffic psychology in a (new) social setting. In Underwood, G.(Ed.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 3-14). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hyder, A.A. and Peden, M. (2003). Inequality and road-traffic injuries: call for action. Lancet, 2034-2035.
Hyman, G.J., Stanley, R. and Burrows, G.D. (1991). The relationship between three multidimensional locus of control scales. Educational and Psychological Measuresment, 51(2), 403-412.
Inagaki, T. (2003). Adaptive automation: sharing and trading of control. In Hollnagel, E. (Ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design (pp. 147-169). LEA
Isani, R. (1963). From hopelessness to hope. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 1(2), 15-17.
Islam, Z. and Hoque, N.M.S. (2004, December). Road users behavioral culture of Dhaka, Bangladesh: an anthropological perspective. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture, Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology, Sungai Petani, Kedah, Malaysia.
Iverson, H. and Rundmo, T. (2002). Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers. Personality and Individual Differences 44, 1251-1263.
Jacobs, G. and Baguley, C. (2004). Traffic safety. In Robinson, R. and Thagesen, B. (Eds.) Road Engineering for Development (pp. 57-77). London: Spon.
Jaffe, E. (2004). What was I thinking: Kahneman explains how intuition leads us astray. Association for Psychological Science Observer, 17, 5.
James, L. and Nahl, D. (2000). Road Rage and Aggressive Driving. Amherst NY: Prometheus.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., and Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions Models and Data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
Johnson, H.M. (1946). The detection and treatment of accident-prone drivers. Psychological Bulletin, 43(6), 489-532.
Johnston, I. (2007). Road trauma in the region – avoiding a pandemic. Journal of the Road Engineering Association of Asia & Australasia, 14(2), 5-12.
Jonah, B.A. (1997a). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 259-267), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Jonah, B.A. (1997b). Sensation seeking and risky driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271.
Joseph, C. (2006). Negotiating discourses of gender, ethnicity and schooling: ways of being Malay, Chinese and Indian schoolgirls in Malaysia. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 141), 35-53.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449-1475.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kanfer, F.H. and Goldstein, A.P. (Eds.) (1990). Helping People Change: A Textbook of Methods. London: Allyn & Bacon
Karlberg, L., Undén, A.-L., Elofsson, S. and Krakau, I. (1998). Is there a connection between car accidents, near accidents, and Type A drivers? Behavioral Medicine, 243(3), 99-106.
Kawazoe, H., Murakami, T.., Sadano, O., Suda, K. and Ono, H. (2001). Development of a lanekeeping support system. Proceedings of Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Navigation Systems pp. 29-35). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
Kenny, D.A. (2006. February 7). Mediation. Retrieved April 9, 2006, from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kerlinger, F.N. and Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M. and Katila, A. (1992). Inner models as a basis for traffic behaviour. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 20(4), 147-152.
Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Laaapotti, S., Katila, A. and Peräho, M. (2004). Driver behaviour as a hierarchical system. In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 9-24). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
King, A. (2004) Measures and meanings: the use of qualitative data in social and personality psychology. In Sansone, C., Morf, C.C. and Panter, A.T. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 145-172). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage
King, Y. and Parker, D. (2008). Driving violations, aggression and perceived consensus. Revue européenne de psychologie appliqué, 58(1), 43-19.
Klem, L. (2000). Structural equation modeling. In Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Klockars, A.J. and Hancock, G.R. (2000). Scheffé’s more powerful F-protected post hoc procedure. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 13-19.
Koh, S. (2005, October 31). Stop the road carnage! Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) Online. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from http://www.mca.org.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/articles/exclusive/2005/10/47611.html &lg=1
Korff, R. (2001). Globalisation and communal identities in the plural society of Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22(3), 270-284.
Krishnan, R., & Radin Umar, R.S. (1997). An update on road traffic injuries in Malaysia. Journal of University Malaya Medical Centre, 2(1), 39-41.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004a). Are female drivers adopting male drivers’ way of driving? In Rothengatter, T. and Huguenin, R.D. (Eds.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. (pp. 201-208). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Laapotti, S. and Keskinen, E. (2004b). Has the difference in accident patterns between male and female drivers changed between 1984 and 2000? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 577-584.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E. and Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 579-587.
Laapotti, S., Keskinen, Htakka, M. and Katila, A. (2001). Novice drivers’ accidents and violations – a failure on higher or lower hierarchical levels of driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, 759-769.
Lajunen, T. (2001). Personality and accident liability: are extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism related to traffic and occupational fatalities? Personality and Individual Differences, 31(8), 1365-1373.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safetymotive dimensions in drivers’ self-assessments. Personality and Individual Difference, 19, 307318.
Lajunen, T. and Summala, H. (1997). Effects of driving experience, personality, driver’s skill and safety orientation on speed regulation and accidents (pp. 283-294). In Rothengatter, T. and Carbonell Vaya, E. (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. 283294), Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Lam, L.T. (2004). Environmental factors associated with crash-related mortality and injury among taxi drivers in New South Wales, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 905908.
Lambie, J.A. and Marcel, A.J. (2002). Consciousness and the varieties of emotion experience: a theoretical framework. Psychological Review, 109, 219-259.
Langdridge, D. (2004). Introduction to Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. London: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Lau, G., Seow, E. and Lim, E.S.Y. (1998). A review of pedestrian fatalities in Singapore from 1990 to 1994. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 27(6), 830-837.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S.,and Wong, S.V. (2005). The Malaysian government’s road accident death reduction target for year 2010. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 29(1), 42-49.
Law, T.H., Radin Umar, R.S., Zulkaurnain, S. and Kulanthayan, S. (2005). Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12(1), 9-21.
Moscati.  Lerner. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. A. British journal of Psychology.  Lefcourt.  Lenior. H. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.  Leech. Lawton. C. G. Mahwah.K. H. R. Billittier. 37. 479-490. 93. 262 ..J. 177-196. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress. 38.P.V. 3. and Morgan. A. 303-304. H. K.  LeShan. 253-269). Cancer as a turning point..B.  Levenson. H. 41. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. New York: E. In Lefcourt. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation.M. G. New York: Academic.. Conner.  Lefcourt. (1973). (Ed. Dutton. and Stiller. (1989). (1976). Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. E.C.A. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes. 377-383. Applied Ergonomics. IV.M. N.M. (2001).L. 2nd Edition. (1974). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. Journal of Personality Assessment.407-423.  Lee. W. L. Journal of Social Psychology. (2002). (1983). In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.. (2005). Malay dominance and opposition politics. 97. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1975). Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. (2002).M. 397-401.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Barrett. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Jehle. D. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. 659-662.  Levenson. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research.M. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. H. D. H. pp.  Levenson. Janssen. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006).G. and Nutter. R. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. H.
(1980). and Donovan.  Looi.S.  Lin.S.  Levy. 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. (1979). (1997). New York: Academic. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk.. L. E. (2007). February 2). Wu. Retrieved April 5. Retrieved May 14. M-R. H-D. (1999. Huang.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. S.. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. 536-545. A. Psychological Reports. Differentiating among internality. 2007 from http://www.A. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. 10. In Rothe. Hwang. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. I. D.htm. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1960). H. R. 11. F.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.my/news/story. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. 15-63). Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. (2007. (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. D. 39(3). Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General.  Lindsey. and Scodel.limkitsiang.P.P. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. Neighbors.com.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. C. 125-127. H-F. Levenson. (Ed. In Lefcourt. March 26). 8-9  Liverant. and Yen.M. 263 .. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Lonczak. (1981).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. The Star Online. 213-222.  Lonero. powerful others and chance. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 2007 from http://thestar. H. (2004).M. J. K. 59-67.  Lim.. L-L. W. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. H.. 7. 36.  Loo.
age. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability.R. 185-217.. 593-597. 55(2).F. May).L. D.  Martin. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. 31. J. 68(5). Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.  Maakip. 299313.  Macdonald. H. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. Watson. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. and Balla.M.  Massie.R..A. 27(1). J. 869-897.  Matthews. R.  Marsh. Quality & Quantity. Balla.L. Accident Analysis and Prevention. L. (2003). Journal of Personality.  Marcoulides.F. (1989). (2000). (1995). (1994. A. C. and Jessurun. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. D.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.L. Report No.  Marsh. and Williams. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. and Hershberger. Lourens.W. Accident Analysis & Prevention. W. Victoria NSW. (Ed.M. Journal of Rehabilitation.. I.P. 129. (1998). P.L. Annual mileage.28. 103.. A. (1988).K.  Luckner. and Mooran. Campbell. Psychological Bulletin. 233-252). In Dorn. 264 . 62-67. and level of education. S. Malaysia. J..A. (1997).  Maruyama. (1986). J.M.R. (1994). Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. M. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. of affect. and McDonald. behavior and cognition. (1999).A. C. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 73-87. G. K. G. 18(4). M. and Wan. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities.W.L. 391-411. R. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course. Australia. H. Vissers.
W. (1998).E. E. S. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. (1974). I. Hampshire UK. (1990). Gilbody. New York: Plenum. L. [ in press].  McRae.  McKenna.htm  McConnell. R. Malaysia Today. F. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. (1983). Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. (2005. Waylen. 29. (1989). F.  Meichenbaum. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. 34(47). Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.P. and Brown. Duncan.  McKenna. and Burkes. (1977). 173-181. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Mendel. Rinehar and Winston. 9.P. 2007 from http://www. Ismail. 23. J. Unconscious suicides.P. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. Risk Analysis. D. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. M. Ergonomics. Beresford. F. (2007). Psychological Medicine.E.. 769-778. Retrieved April 5. D.. G. J. 45-52.. Personality in Adulthood. Sambasivan.  McKenna. New York: Guilford.  McMillan. and Costa. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. (1986). (2009). (1989).D. Perspectives Psychiatriques. A.  Mercer. I.. Fort Worth TX: Holt.. Journal of Managerial Psychology.  Md-Sidin. M.V.malaysia-today. 71-77.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. G. and Neilly.R.. 37(6). P. 649-663. S. 265 . November 6). The University of Reading. Understanding Human Behavior.
A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. (Eds. and Keskinen. A. Finland.org/pdf/agdr3study. L.  Mintz. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. and Shapiro. R. Safety Science. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Statistics. 2007.A. 341-353.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. microsleep episodes. and Niemi. (2003). A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know.  Mikkonen.L. M.  Mizel. J. and Schwing. New York: Plenum.my/en/street_smart_statistik.  Mintz.. In Helkama.J. 2006 from http://www. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology. and Laflamme.panducermat. 401406. Hasselberg. (1989). G.  Miles. l.E. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. what should we do? In Evans. Nhan.M. 147-161. E.org. (1997). (2006). (1985). Journal of Applied Psychology. C. A. Simulator performance.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. P. Kayumov. 75-85. and Blum. K.aaafoundation. (154). V.  Monárrez-Espino. Washington DC. J. 266 . Turku. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 33(3).php.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007)..A. 44(2)... Bulmas. In Aggressive driving: three studies. J.L. and Johnson. 195-211. from http://www. M. 38(6). 6(2). (1949). (1983. 61(3). Retrieved May 23. Aggressive driving.  Michon. Retrieved December 15. J. L. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. May). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. D. L. H. E. 335-342.pdf  Moller. 21(4). Time intervals between accidents.L. (Eds.C. Michon.
(2007).  Morris. Montag.  Moore.E. 339-343. 167-202). A. Transcultural Psychiatry.. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Religioin 37.  Niméus. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. R.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp.L.  Näätänen. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. L.. S.  Neuman. Amsterdam: North Holland. Fifth Edition. and Comrey. Nandy. Accident Analysis and Prevention. K. E. (1994). (1999). 15(2). and Astur.B. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. and Summala. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (2007). 42. R. 243-261. W. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. I.  Most. and Krasner. 267 ..  Mousser. Journal of Applied Psychology. 38(1). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (Eds. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. MY: Sage.  Näätänen. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. A. J. 8.T. D. H. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making.  Nandy. (1976). New York: Allyn & Bacon.  Novaco.L. (Eds. R. and Maniam. Boston: Pearson. 137-144. 164-174.L. 320-388). A.S. R.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Accident proneness and road accidents. (1987). 32-37. P. (1974). 72. Journal of Affective Disorders. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. In O’Donoghue . and Gomez. Petaling Jaya. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. and Summala H. 51-63. T. A. (1956). Visual Cognition. 125-132. A. (2003). 6. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. W.
F. 201-215). M. 468-472. P. J. (2001).  Novaco. In Fuller. B.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. R. R. P. and Lonnqvist. and Santos. N51. (1998). J. R. 92-93.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. P. (Ed. Zwi (1997). (2007.  O’Neill..  Noy.  O’Connell. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. Garner.B. Pentilla. and Hermida. 4(2).  Ochando. British Journal of Psychiatry. 253-326). AZ: Lawyers & Judges. UK: Ashgate. (Eds. and Olson. 654-656.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. 43-76). 171. R. J. Spanish Journal of Psychology.F (2001).38. R. In Baenninger.  Ogden. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. [Letter to the Editor] The Star.A. Human factors in modern traffic systems. 34. 237-252. A. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. E. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application].  N-S highway still one of the safest roads.L. Injury Prevention.R. W. and Williams. (1996. p. I. 40(10).W. Oxford UK: North Holland. February 8). (2002).S. Aldershot. Aggression on roadways.L (2002). 2(5). (1997). Driver perception-response time. (1996). Tropical Medicine and International Health. (2000). and Z. Tucson. 268 . Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 4. In Dewar. K.W. Driver suicides. says operator. A. 445-460. M. Temes.  Olson. Novaco. Straits Times. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. A. (1997).  Ohberg.W.. Ergonomics. p. 1016-1024.. December 9).
Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. 92. C. S. J. R. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.E.  Özkan. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Helsinki. W. A. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. J. T. 38(3). driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. (2001). 37(1). O. Finland. (pp. 533-545.  Parker. and Schneider.S. and Huguenin.W. T. Amsterdam: Elsevier.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan.R..  Parsons. Reason. and Kaistinen. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. Tassinary. 34. Ulrich. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. D. 3-13.S. 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. and Grossman-Alexander.S. B. (1988). Journal of Environmental Psychology. D. M. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT)..ictct. Lajunen. and Synodinos.  Parsons. 1036-1048. R. 456-461. Personality and Individual Difference. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. H.R and Stradling.T.G. 2007 from www. Anger on and off the road. R. Lajunen. T. (2004). (1995). Özkan. L. 479-486. Ergonomics. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Driving errors. 269 . 125-134). (Eds.. (2002).  Papacostas. 42.  Parker.. Traffic locus of control. C. (2005). 38(5).. T. 507-526. Accident Analysis & Prevention.A. British Journal of Psychology.  Parker. 18. N. and Lajunen (2005). D. Hebl.pdf -  Pai.D.G.. J. and Saleh. M. Manstead.. 113-140. 229-235. driving violations and accident involvement.  Parkinson. (1974).M. and Summala. (1998). Retrieved December 20. T. 40. (2008).
B.R. and Baldwin. 35. Brazil.R. and Al Haji. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. 9-14 270 . A.A. 147-154. G.A. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. (1999). D. Matto Grosso do Sul. London: Taylor & Francis. Hyder.and Schuman. British Medical Journal.  Peltzer. Automotive Vehicle Safety.  Per. M. T. Morristown NJ: General Learning. U. L. 12(3). March 20-22. (1976). (2005). Taillard. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Campo Grande. 201-204. Geneva. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. and Mathers (Eds.  Perry.) (2004). A.B. (1980).  Peters. (2003). (2002)... and Renner.. 8(1). 68-79. M. M. 1153. and Peters. (2000). and Singh. B. 63.  Peden.C. Superstition. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 875-878. Journal of Sleep Research.  Phares. 619-623. G. (1986). Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. World report on road traffic injury prevention. Jarawan. Quera-Salva. W. Peden. E. S.  Pestonjee. Switzerland: World Health Organization. A. R. 2007 from http:www. J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. 91. (1971). Bioulac. D. and Åkerstedt. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Scurfield.s  Pelz.. Retrieved March 31. Mohan. Simple reaction time.H..J. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.  Philip. D. 324. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills. and Hyder. (2002).M. D.A.ictct. 3. Sleet. E. A. K.J.. D.. Locus of Control in Personality. P.
Stradling. (1991). 334-343. (1989).  Preston. (1996). 26. R. internal-external locus of control and depression. and Campbell. 16(3).  Proctor.. (1990). Plous. Disaster Prevention and Management.  Ranney. 49(4).. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 3112). and Harris. J. (1993).  Reason. 33. (2000).. 284-288. 733-750. New York: McGraw Hill. Breen. (1965). C. Chalmers. S. (1976). S.. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads. Traffic Engineering and Control. and Lussier.J. 271 .  Radin Umar.I. Human Error. F.. 299-300.N. J. W. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. and Langley.  Reason. K.J. P. E. C. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Journal of Clinical Psychology. and Pant. L. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics.S. 32. S. 317-333.  Prociuk. 32(2). T. (1994). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.E. S. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. 1315-1332.H. 32(3). J.  Rautela. A.S. R. 369-374  Renner. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone.J.J.  Porter. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Reeder. Rider training. D. and Anderle. S. Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. 566-573. 78-80. Journal of Applied Psychology. T.D. 20(4). reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. J. Ergonomics. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. Baxter.-G. Hopelessness. and Corlett. 673-678. S. Manstead. 29(1). (2005). (1990).A. Cambridge University Press. (2007).
190. K. S. (Ed). Report to the General Assembly.  Risser. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.D.  Rimmö. and Solomon. In Rothengatter.  Robbins.P. 485-489. A. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.html  Robbins..A. (Eds.  Romano. (2000). In Lim.  Romano.L.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. P. Tippetts. and Voas.  Rice. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. Tippetts. 272 . 45(8). R. Stress and Health. Accident Analysis & Prevention. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. E. cities. P. 37(1). and Downe. 2007 from http://www.64. P-A.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. Anger. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. (2005). S. and Voas.. and Huguenin. (2004). Retrieved May 23. S. and Nickel. (2002). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. 2007 from http://202. Singapore: Elsevier.G. E. Journal of Safety Research. T. 569-582.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. 453-460. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.B. Journal of Safety Research. R. R. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. Retting.Y. (2007) Statistik2006.R. April).  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. (2000). W-R. Retrieved December 11. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. H. R. (2003. S.efpa. Organizational Behavior.pdf  Risser. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. 34(15). 37(3).  Richardson. Ergonomics. 1-7. Weinstein. Theories of science in traffic psychology. R.G. (2003). M.S.. (1999).
P-E. (2005). (2006).  Rothengatter.  Rotter. T. J. (Ed.P. 273 . (2002). (2005). and Bhopal. Amsterdam: Elsevier. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. J. American Psychologist. topics and methods. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. 249-258. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia.B.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. 5. (1990).  Rowley. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources.  Rothengatter. Psychological Monographs.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 3-12). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. M.  Rotter. (2001) Objectives. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. G. (pp. and Bhopal. 214-220).  Rotter. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. and Shahar. 45. 10. T. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. T. C.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 56-67. G. 88. whole issue. 43(1). J.B. (1975).B.(Ed. (Ed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. In Underwood. (1998). 84-115. (1966).  Rothengatter. 489-493.B. (Ed. 428-435  Rothe. Rosenbloom. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.P. T. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Boston: Kluwer. (2002). C. (2007). In Rothe. 308-331.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 80.  Rowley. J. J. In Barjonet.  Rothengatter. 43(3). Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. Traffic safety: content over packaging. Capital & Class. M. A. 595-600). T.
J. and Heiskanen. Bukit Aman. 2007 from http://www. Kuala Lumpur. occupational. Correlations between traffic. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). sports and home accidents. Retrieved May 22. F. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Rude drivers lack emotional control.A. (2002). Human Factors for Engineers (pp.malaysia-today. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Fuller.gov.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). 37(2). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. p. Malaysiatoday (Reuters). IBU Pejabat Polis. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. S. and Santos (Eds. (2005). Accident Analysis and Prevention. IBU Pejabat Polis. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. R. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. (2006. Bukit Aman.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). Thrills.  Saad. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 29(1). (1999).htm 274 . September 26). M.). B.my.  Salminen.  Salminen. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. (1997).A2.rmp. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. J. 373-376. IBU Pejabat Polis. Retrieved December 11. 33-36. Bukit Aman. September 29).net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002).  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2003 from http://www. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 23-42). Road Safety – Back to the Future. (2005.  Sadiq.  Sabey. Kuala Lumpur. The Star. S.
Healy. A. 6(9). and Langley (2002). K. Asian Survey. Severson. P. C. (2004).F.A. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. V. (Eds.. (2008. Jr. 801-810.F.E. Regional Development Series. Applied Economics. 673-687. 29(3). Accident Analysis and Prevention. conscientiousness. 275 . Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.  Schwebel. J. Fosser. 117-147). H. Accident Analysis and Prevention. In Sansone. Morf.. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.E. 3-16).  Scuffham. (1966). (2003). Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. and Young. and sensation seeking. (1997). M.  Schneider. S..T. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. and Sætermo.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. Ball.C. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. Ericsson.A. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. v. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. Nagoya: Japan. and the social psychological road in between.. 484-491. (1995). 293302  Salih. and Bourne. P. L. and Panter. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. K. In Healy.C. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. 34. 41. In Honjo.). Morf.  Sansone. (2006). (1981). 38. A. (2000).  Scuffham. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. B. and Rizzo. little details. 6. November 15). C..A. Jr.T. D. C. 314-318. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Personal correspondence. Traffic Engineering + Control. and Schade. M. M. and Bourne. (Ed. C.L. K. Sagberg. The research process: of big pictures.  Sambasivan.C. M.  Schlag. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. and Panter.I.F. A. 35.  Sendut.. F.. J. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. A. 179-188.K. L.
suicide and unconscious motivation. 46(15). K. Ketchen.  Shook.J. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. B.  Siegel. E. Journal of Counseling and Development.M. G.H. Automobile accidents. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. (2007). Journal of Consumer Research. New York: McGraw Hill. 51(1). Fourth Edition. 119(3). Hartwick. and Roskova.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). 66. (1998).L. J.. C. D.  Siegriest.  Shapiro. M. S. Ergonomics. 15(3). In Barjonet. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.  Sheppard.L. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. M. 1. and Kanekar. P. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study..  Shinar.M and Kacmar.. A. Sekaran. B. 237-240. D. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education.. 3-7. and Zakowska.  Sharma. 25.  Shinar. Strategic Management Journal. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dewar. 276 . and Payne.  Sharkin. D. 397-404. (2003).T.R. and Warshaw.  Selzer. Summala. Hult. J. (2001). American Journal of Psychiatry. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. 325-343. (2004). S. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation.E. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. (1988). (1956). P-E. 180-205). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. U. (1962). (1988). (2000). (2003). 361-365. H. C. Boston: Kluwer.E. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services.. (Ed. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R.P. L. 1549-1565.S. 137-160.
American Psychologist. P. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp. Oxford UK.K.C.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. (1992). Journal of Risk and Insurance. Kurylo. and Guest..R.. 1029-1030. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists..org/publik/driving. A. (1995). (2001. Stress. C. Winter). J.D. (2007)..  Stanton. (1998). Measuring the experience. 50(8). 277 . Ergonomics.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. J. and Sydeman. B.D. M. B. N. E. Cognitive Therapy and Research.. 47(8). P. 14(4). and Poirier.  Slovic. Product design with people in mind. (Ed. C. C. Auto safety and human adaptation.pdf  Spielberger. B.J. Reheiser. D..  Smiley. Fishchoff. In Stanton.sirc. Corrigan. In Kassinove.K. Matthews. FL: Taylor & Francis. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. London: Arnold.).A.. Jr. and Coombs.A. August). N. (1997). Retrieved December 1. and Watson. S. International Journal of Stress Management.A.G. 237-258.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder. (2004). (1977). Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. expression and control of anger. 2007 from http://www. P. Crowson. Lichtenstein. B. 386-397.C. 1-18). 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. Editorial. R. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis.  Slinn.J. N. 44.. B. Boca Raton. 1151-1158. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. Houston. H.  Spielberger. (Ed. 49-68). 477-492. (2007). S. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. and Frank. M.  Stanton. Sinha. 21(4). 2007 from http://findarticles. Retrieved December 25. Issues in Science and Technology.
 Stanton. Stokols. and Ryan. (Ed. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. (1988)..  Sümer. R. N. T. The Methodology of Theory Building. Ergonomics. Journal of Applied Psychology. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. (2000). M. T.  Storey.  Subramaniam.. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system.  Stewart. 529-544. D. New York: Guilford. Medical Journal of Malaysia. Traffic Injury Prevention. Palamara.  Sümer. 178-182. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Trabasso. 247-254.A. (1996). (2001). N.L. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. UK: Edward Elgar. P. and Erol. R. 681-688. D. R. Cheltenham. Sümer. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. 467-480. N. J. 949-964. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Journal of Psychology. M. 139(6).A.  Steiner.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. N.E.E. Novaco. 2(4).W. (Eds. 35. Bilgic. 1359-1370. G. Maggio. H. J. 279-300).R. In Stough.. Type A Behavior. (1993). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2005). Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers.. M.  Stough. M. E. and Jin.  Stevenson. Morrison. (2001).C. In Lewis. and Havland. 278 . Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 37(4). 43(9). N.  Stokols.) Intelligent Transportation Systems.. N. and stress.. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. 44(3). M. and Pinto. R.. (1978).  Stein. and Liwag. R. (2005).R. 63.. and Campbell. A. Traffic congestion. D. (2003).M.
and de Bruin. Özkan. Nieminen. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey.  Summala. A. T. H. A.  Swaddiwudhipong. vehicles. H. 31. 703-711. 18(4). Amsterdam: Elsevier. S. (1996). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala.. (1988). H. (1980). University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. (2005). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. H. (1997). Helsinki. H. 103-117. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. T. G. In Underwood. (2006). Mahasakpan.. 38(3). (1994). Safety Science. (1988). Ergonomics.  Summala. N. Berument.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Sümer. W. (Eds. H.K. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. (2005). (1996). H. Nguntra. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 491-506. Koonchote. and Lajunen. Personal resources. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. In In Rothengatter. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. T. 383-394). (Ed. 21. In Rothengatter. and Merisalo.. 41-52). 331-342.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. M. Human Factors. (Eds. 442-451.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers.N. and Carbonell Vaya E. N. T. 82-92). A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Journal of Traumatic Stress. G. Accident risk and driver behaviour.. 22(1-3). and Tantriratna. and Punto. (1986).  Summala. (Report 11). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks.  Summala. T.  Summala.. Karanci. H. and Näätänen. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. and Gunes. S. R. 193-199. 38. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 .  Summala. P.. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts.  Summala. P.  Sümer. H..
Y. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates. In Grimm. Boston: Kluwer. and Papacostas. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. 167-172. J. Kuhn.  Theodorson.. E. 609-615. Fujihara.M. (1985). (2001). T.E. (2000). 353-369.R. S. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics.  Tanaka. P. Journal of Clinical Psychology. and Fragopanagos (2005). S. (1969).  Tanaka. 37-44. E. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.A. (2001). N.. (1996). T. The effects of road design on driving. and Theodorson. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. S.233-239. Y.  Thompson. and Kitamura.J. In Barjonet..  Tanaka.. Sakamoto. 33(2). P-E. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. P. C. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. (Ed. Ono. Journal of Social Psychology.. Fujihara. Ono. and Yarnold. Sakamoto.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. International Review of Applied Psychology. 18(4). L. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. The interaction of attention and emotion. 42. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation.S. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology.G.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. (eds. Neural Networks. E. B.  Taylor. G. (1989).C. 581-590. 280 . New York: Thomas & Cromwell.  Theeuwes. G.  Synodinos. and Layde. G.  Tavris. 25(1). 241-263). and Kitamura. (1998).) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. C. and Huba.. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. New York: Simon & Schuster. 52(6). S. J. 241-257.  Tavris. (1985).S.M. A. 34. 138(5).R. J. D.
 Tversky. and Milton. G. L. 4(4). and Kahneman. and Vavrik. and response to a traffic safety campaign. (1949). 23(1).  Trick.. 11-22. accident involvement. Thurman. Applied Cognitive Psychology. A. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. (2001).  Tiliman. Chapman. In Neumann. 207-332. and Kahneman. and Everatt. P. Anger while driving. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. 55-68.A and Hobbs. and Sanders. 281 . R. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. 385-424. 1124-1130. and Kirkcaldy. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 147-152. J.F. American Journal of Psychiatry. (1999).  Trimpop. London: Academic. Enns. (2004). 2.  Underwood. (1974). 5(5). J. (1973)..E. D. 7. 106(5). Personality and Individual Differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology. D. (2003).  Ulleberg. G. Relationship to risk-taking preferences.. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. The accident prone automobile driver. 279-297.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.M.  Underwood. C. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Judgment under uncertainty. 10(3).  Turner. A. Volume 3: Attention.  Tversky. Wright and Crundall. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. (1996). Mills. Personality predictors of driving accidents.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Science. D. B. Personality subtypes of young drivers.  Underwood. O. 5. J. G. H. W. 123-130.T. G. A. and McClure. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. (1993). J. 32(3). 445-448. (Eds. (1997). Cognitive Psychology. (1985). 185.W. 321-333. R. C. P.
 Verwey. Sanson. J.ictct.. W. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Smart.A. and Rothengatter. Retrieved September 1. 181-190). (1999).D. (2000).org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. (2007).M. March 20-22. and Huguenin..org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst... Amsterdam: Elsevier. and McIntyre. 2007 from www.F. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. “Accident prone. 39. J.  Velting. S. 26. R. E. 210-222. D. 336-345. H. Matto Grosso do Sul. Bergerson. J. (2005). T. 43(2). Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints.ictct. In Underwood. 444-458. (2001). 282 . Harrison.  Vaa. Meijman.  Vasconcellos. A. A. A. In Rothengatter. Caserta. M. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.pdf  Vallières. On-line driver workload estimation. Accident Analysis and Prevention.B. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).J. S. G.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Retrieved December 5.F. 2007 from http:www. (1999).  Vavrik. Brazil. D. Driver selection and improvement in Germany. (2005).D. T.. (Eds. 42.. 24-29. 9(2). R. É. T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Harris. Ergonomics. (1998). W. Utzelmann. Campo Grande.” Recovery. Cockfield. (2004). and Vallerand. (Ed.A. Ergonomics. 913-921. Italy. Personality and Individual Differences.. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches.
T. Elliot. 283 . 427-433. H.A. and Zaidel.R. In Rothengatter. P. and Little. 33.E. and Carbonell Vaya E.  Wállen Warner. January 21). (2001).P. A.  Walker. and McKenna. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.  Waterman. G. B. 5(4).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.T. (2009. R.  Waller.M.. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. T... Retrieved December 15. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior.S.B. Shope. M. F.. and Åberg.P. 1-8). 28. 9. D. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).backwoodshome. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. 50(4). (Eds.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 438-447. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. Wellington. Stanton.J. P. (2006). Raghunathan. (2002). (2000). Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. 2007 from http://www. Retrieved November 2.A.F. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Transportation and society. Personality and Individual Differences. 421-444. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. M. 117128. Backwoods Home Magazine. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 123-142. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences.F. 2008 from http://www. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety.  Watson. (1998). Verwey.com/articles/waterman37.H. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. and Young. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. N. L. W. Heppner. (2001).  Waller. J. A. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.  Waylen..html. M.theaa.pdf  Wei. New Zealand. Journal of Counseling Psychology. P. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention.
J. Snow. G. 31. Accident Prevention. British Journal of Psychology. (Ed.  West. Advances in Paediatrics. Childhood accidents. Wiliams. J.  Wells. D. 207-219. (2005). M. R.S.M. G. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. (1973). Fox. and Anderson.S. Ergonomics.. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. 195. In Halsey.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.. Elander..).J. 441-468.J. (pp.  Wilde. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions.J. B. Weissman. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 .L. G. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill.  Wheatley. (2002). Preventions of accidents in childhood. and French. M. M. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. (1982). G. (1993).. 8.  Wilde.N. G. P.S. 324. 271278. J. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. (1984). deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Guiling. Toronto: PDE Publications.  Wilde. E. University of Waterloo Press. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 15(11/12). (1961). G. G. (2002). 1149-1152. Target Risk.W.S. Ceminsky. and Klerman. S.J. In Yager.S. 450-455.M (1956). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 34. American Journal of Psychiatry.  Wilde.. 84. Hallberg.  Wheatley.. (ed. Risk Analysis.S. (1994). Dunaway. G. S.J. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. G. 130(4).. (1988). 2. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. 209-225. K. Mild social deviance. 1116-1121.  Wilde. 135-154). G.  Wilde. R. (2007).  Wells-Parker.
T.ictct. J. In Hanson. and Well.) Contemporary Ergonomics. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice... Farmington Hills MI: Gale.  Wilson. Space and Culture.Workshop.  Williams. N. Flyte and Garner.. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape.G.F. by age and gender.  Williamson. 527-531. and Poythress.R. and Shabanova. L. Countries and Their Cultures. (2008). for motor-vehicle crash deaths. Applied Ergonomics. N. J. (2004). 26(6).  Williams. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. Welsh.  Williams. 110-131.  Woodcock. A. (2001). 31. Mastering the World of Psychology. Cascardi.B. 285 . M. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. T. Gavin. Retrieved March 31.  Williams. 2007 from http:www. 398-403. Journal of Safety Research. A. 303346. (1994).S. and Boyd. Campo Grande. International Social Science Journal. Brazil.K. Psychological Assessment.E. (1996). Responsibility of drivers. (2003). (2003). 99-109. 807-811. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Wood. 34(5).C. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. 55(175). (2000)..I.  Williamson.J. Lenard. 557-567. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management.Y. A. M.  Wood. M. The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway. Boston: Pearson. New York: Taylor & Francis. S. (Ed. 6(2).. E. S. (2003). 1.A. V.. A. (1999). T.F. Matto Grosso do Sul. 8. J.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. D.G. March 20-22. Boyd. J. and Hartman.
C. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. Islam. (2000). 473-485. G. theatre and tourism. 46-58. In Underwood. N. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society.  Yaapar. and Stanton. 740-746. Ergonomics. (2005). D. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Ergonomics. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. 50(1). Ergonomics. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). 487-503). 286 . Report of an Advisory Group.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). M. 33(3).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 43(9). 42(5). Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. L.  Yergil. and Chaffin. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Technical Report Series No.S. Asian Journal of Social Science. Geneva.  Zhang.R. X.  Zikovitz. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. . and Harris. (Ed. (2005). D. D. Country reports.A. Head tilt during driving. 1314-1330. (2007). 118. (1999). S.
traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. Immediately after releasing the pressure. (see also. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. the brake line pressure is relates. presumably because of personality factors. ABS ensures that. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . on most surface types. As a result. or benefits. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. differential accident involvement). the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages.GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. allowing the wheel to turn.
the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. including driver behaviour. 25). (see also. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also.Noy. 2004. (see also. McKenna of the University of Reading. where possible. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. it refers to a combination of circumstances. 288 . risk homeostasis theory. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. task capability theory) . road and traffic conditions. (see also. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. In the present research. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. time of week and. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. characteristics of road users. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. distal variable. rather than a theory. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. proximal variable. Also referred to as risk compensation. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. p. (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. The central idea is that. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis.
(see also. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. self-concept. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. values. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. ability. in-crash. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. interests. 289 . who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.S. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. Department of Transportation.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. 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). (see also. intelligence. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. not as a unidimensional. William Haddon Jr. 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. 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. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. selfefficacy and self-esteem. aptitudes. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. motivation. In traffic psychology. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson.
Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. For the purposes of the present research. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. including life goals” (Chaplin. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. the individual differences approach. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. 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. That is.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. Wilde. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. For the purposes of the present research. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. conversely. 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”. p. 1985. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. mobile construction equipment or platforms. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour.S. and buses. most usually on roads. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. trucks (lorries). Included in this term are walking. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. 333-334). if perceived risk exceeds target risk. motorcycles. the ego and the superego. Private speech: see self-talk. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. motorised bicycles. motor vehicles included automobiles. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . bicycling.
as the result of injury sustained in the crash. Road safety engineering: “a process. 1996. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. draining system. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. (see also.” (Ogden. parking spaces. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. bridges. signage.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. Within the context of this research. stopping places. tunnels. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. 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. overpasses. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. p. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. target risk. including the network. behavioural adaptation. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. archways and footpaths. but only 291 . at both conscious and unconscious levels. 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. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. 35). Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks.
(see also. behaviour control) (see also. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. remains constant at the target level. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). which are the best predictors of behaviour. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. (see also. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. According to RHT proponents. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. theory of reasoned action. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. According to Wilde (1994). which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. On dry roads. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. 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. 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. theory of planned behavriour) 292 .when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. 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. (see also.
Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . In the present research. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. coordinating. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. (see also. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. from its outset.Traffic management: planning. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. behavioural adaptation. time. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. comfort. motorised and non-motorised. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. convenience and economy. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. ergonomics. management science and economics. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. community planning. road engineering. that share the same road infrastructure.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Beck & Steer. CA 90025 USA http://portal.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. Buss & Warren.html 295 .A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Brace & Company). Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. Papacostas & Synodinos. San Antonio. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess.com/cgibin/MsmGo.wpspublish. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.eng. 2000).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.hawaii. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr.S. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 19500 Bulverde Road.edu/~csp/csp. 1993). Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. C. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.
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.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. 296 . Crowson.ukans. Houston. Snyder.edu/hope. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.psych. C.R. Snyder. Kansas 66045 USA www.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. 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 . 1. please answer the following questions: 2.g. _________.what manufacturer & model (e. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can. In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. We are not asking for your name. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.g. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. _________. Most of the time when you travel.
do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a car. Within the last twelve (12) months.8. all the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 299 . When you want to use a motorcycle. most of the time ___ no 10. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. 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.
have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your gender? 16. Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. Within the last twelve months. but no injuries? If yes. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 13. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 .12. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes.