This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ALAN GIFFIN DOWNE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY MULTIMEDIA UNIVERSITY APRIL 2008
Siti Hasmah Digital Library
Digitally signed by Siti Hasmah Digital Library DN: cn=Siti Hasmah Digital Library, c=MY, o=Multimedia University, ou=Research Library, email=kamal. email@example.com Date: 2009.07.02 11:55:19 +08'00'
The copyright of this thesis belongs to the author under the terms of the Copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Regulation 4(1) of the Multimedia University Intellectual Property Regulations. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material contained in, or derived from, this thesis.
Alan Giffin Downe, April 2008 All rights reserved
I hereby declare that the work contained herein has been done by myself and that no portion of the work contained in this thesis has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
______________________ Alan Giffin Downe
First, I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my supervisor, Dr. Stanley Richardson, whose guidance, wisdom and high standards have motivated me and kept me on track throughout all phases of the project. I also thank my former employer, Multimedia University, for permitting me to undertake doctoral studies during my time as a lecturer in the Faculty of Management. In this regard, I would like to express my gratitude for the gracious support and encouragement I have received from Prof. Dr. A. Seetharaman, current Dean of Management and from Prof. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Ismail Sayyed Ahmad, former Dean of Management. I also wish to thank Dr. A.S. Santhapparaj, Dr. V. Anantaraman and especially Dr. Sayed Hossain for coordinating and serving as panelists, respectively, when I presented this research to the faculty during my work completion seminar.
Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project. I especially thank Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher (University of Colorado), Dr. Yori Gidron (Brunel University), Dr. C.S. Papacostas (University of Hawaii at Manoa), Dr. Dianne Parker (University of Manchester), Dr. Murali Sambasivan (Universiti Putra Malaysia), the late Dr. C.R. Snyder (University of Kansas), and Dr. Henriette Wallén Warner (Dalarna University).
I would like also to thank four undergraduate research assistants who completed data collection for the study of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers: Agatha Yeoh Siew Ling, Gracy Thomas, Nazlina Nasihin and Sangeetha Munisamy.
I wish to acknowledge the Road Engineering Association of Malaysia (REAM), an organisation to which I have felt privileged to belong, as an Associate Member, since 2001.
There are many individuals who have contributed greatly to the completion of this project through their helpful suggestions, collegial affiliation and friendship, notably Aw Lin, Aznur Hajar Binti Abdullah, Azrai Abdullai, Ming-Yu Cheng, Adeline Chua, Cynthia Downe, Ridhwan Fontaine, Jessica Ho Sze Yin, Lily Idayu, Loke Choong Khoon, Loke Siew Poh, Razlina Rezali, Omar Salahuddin Bin Abdullah, Bobby Varanasi and David Yong. A special expression of thanks is due to Fatimah Syam @ Noor Azleen A. Gani at the Siti Hasmah Digital Library for her very helpful assistance. For their caring support, I also wish to thank my mother, Evelyn G. Downe and Howard, of Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.
The phrase, “without whom this research would never have been completed” appears ubiquitously in theses and dissertations around the world. But never has it been truer than in the contribution made here by my wife, Siew-Phaik Loke. She has helped me to score questionnaires, set up spreadsheets and enter data into the computer. She provided thoughtful input into solving even the most baffling problems of multivariate analysis. She sustained me with her constant reassurance throughout the project. And she did it all while excelling at her own PhD studies, starting a business, launching her career as a university lecturer and lovingly, patiently caring for our son. To her, I will be always grateful.
DEDICATION In the wee hours of a cold morning on December 5th, 2002 my father, Dr. A.E.R. Downe, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Canada’s Queen’s University passed away in his hospital bed in Kingston, Ontario after suffering a long and debilitating illness. For 47 years, he had been my inspiration and my role model. From him, I learned the value of hard work and family, the excitement that comes from scientific inquiry and the fortitude that evolves in a man’s struggle against adversity. Not a day goes by when I don’t find myself thinking of him.
On that very same day, on the other side of the planet, my little boy Richardson Downe Loke Ken, at ten months of age, took his first unaided steps, launching a jerky trajectory from the sofa to the television set, where he hugged the image of Sir Alex Ferguson. From his birth, I have marveled at Kenny’s boundless energy, his gentle disposition and his ability to fill his mother’s and my existence with one part challenge and nine parts joy. I only hope that I am able to teach him the same lessons that my father taught me.
It is to these two very special people that I dedicate this work.
freeway urgency. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. However. on average. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. 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). hopelessness.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. and that driver behaviours. one sample of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved motorcycle riding (n = 122) and one sample of professional taxicab drivers (n = 149) were studied. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency). Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. where. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. some personality constructs. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. demographic (age. personality traits. respectively). BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. seven fatalities are recorded each day. 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. previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. and destination-activity orientation. 302 and 252. vii . externally-focused frustration. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated.
particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. viii . Among distal variables. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. 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. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed.Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. in mediating the effects of the distal variables was analysed using a four-step regression procedure developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) and using structural equation modelling (SEM) with LISREL. BIT. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. as well. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. The role of the proximal variable. As reported in previous studies. Results indicated that. As hypothesised.
3 ix .5 188.8.131.52 Concepts.3 184.108.40.206 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 2.2.1 220.127.116.11.2.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.3.1 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.2 1.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Accident Proneness 18.104.22.168 Differential Accident Involvement 2.1.2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 An Applied Perspective 22.214.171.124.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2 2.2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 2. Theories and Models 2.4 Risk Theories 2.1.4 1.
5.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.7.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.3.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.3 Locus of Control 3.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.9.6 184.108.40.206.2.4.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 220.127.116.11 Process Models 2.3 Psychological Variables 2.5.2 Gender 2.2.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 18.104.22.168. Gender and Ethnicity 3.2.1 The Haddon Matrix 2.4 Hopelessness 22.214.171.124.5.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .3 Ethnicity 2.4 2.1 Statistical Models 126.96.36.199 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 188.8.131.52 Driver Characteristics 184.108.40.206.4.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.1 Experience 2.3.1 Age 2.2 A Conceptual Shift from TAPB to Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) As A Variable 34 35 37 38 38 39 41 41 42 42 43 45 47 49 50 50 50 52 56 58 58 61 63 63 63 64 67 69 71 73 73 75 CHAPTER 3: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 220.127.116.11 18.104.22.168.2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.22.214.171.124.126.96.36.199 Locus of Control 2.3.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 188.8.131.52.3.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.1 184.108.40.206 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 2.2 Zero Risk Theory 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.2 Hopelessness 2.
5.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.5 220.127.116.11.1 Chi-Square (χ2).5.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 18.104.22.168.2.5.4 3.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.2. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.3 Study 1C 22.214.171.124 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 126.96.36.199.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 3.2 Study 1B 3.8 Crash Occurrence 188.8.131.52.1 Study 1A 3.7.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.2 Research Instruments 3.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 3.6 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.9 Skewness and Kurtosis 86 87 88 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 91 93 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 100 100 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 107 107 107 108 108 108 109 109 110 110 xi .6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 3.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 184.108.40.206 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 3.5.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.1 The Sample 3.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.22.214.171.124 Studies 1 and 2 3.7 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52 3.7.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 3.3 3.4 Study 2 3.2 Degree of freedom (df) 184.108.40.206.220.127.116.11 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.5.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.3.
6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5 4.2.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.5.6 xii .2 Parallel-Form Reliability 18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 126.96.36.199.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Age.1.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 4.3 Validity Test Results 4.6.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 4.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.3.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4. Gender and Ethnicity 4.2.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 188.8.131.52 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 4.3 184.108.40.206.1 Internality as a Moderator 4. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 4.2 Results of Study 2 4.3.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.1.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 220.127.116.11.2 18.104.22.168 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 22.214.171.124.6.6.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.1 Results of Study 1 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 4.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 126.96.36.199 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2.
1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers 4.4.7 188.8.131.52 Study 2 4.5 5.2 184.108.40.206 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 4.9.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.5.6 xiii .1 Generalisability of Findings 5.9.2 Goodness of Fit 22.214.171.124 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 5.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 126.96.36.199 4.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 188.8.131.52.5.1 Study 1C 4.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.6.4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 158 159 163 163 169 170 173 173 173 174 174 176 176 177 177 179 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.4 5.8.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 184.108.40.206 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 5.
7.7. Training and Rehabilitation 220.127.116.11 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 .2 Engineering Interventions 18.104.22.168 5.7.1 Theory vs.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.3 Driver Selection.22.214.171.124.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 5. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.3 Education 126.96.36.199 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 5.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.5.
3 3. 2002-2006 Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Research Hypotheses Dimensions of the BIT scale The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Gender and Ethnicity of the Sample for Studies 1 and 2 Age.1 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.11 xv .1 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.9 4.3 3.4 115 117 118 119 4.3 114 4.5 4.4 3.LIST OF TABLES No.2 3. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1.2 4. Table Page 2. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.7 4.10 4.8 111 121 121 122 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.
25 138 4.17 129 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means. 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 4.13 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency.18 131 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.4.12 4.16 128 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.26 138 139 144 145 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency.14 4.20 134 4.23 136 4.28 4.19 133 4.22 136 4.21 135 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.27 4.29 xvi . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.
2 5.1 199 206 207 5.31 4.6 xvii .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 4.34 4.30 4.39 4.4 208 5.4.5 209 225 5.33 4.3 5.37 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 4.41 175 5.35 4.36 4.32 4.
2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 3. 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 2.3 3. 2. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller.4 148 xviii . 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.1 4.2 147 148 4.3 4. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2.6 2. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 3.1 2. Hatakka.7 2.4 2.8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.LIST OF FIGURES No.3 2.2 3.4 4.2 2. 1996.9 59 2.
6 4.9 4.10 4.5 4.13 xix .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 4.12 4.8 4.7 4.4.
things were not going well. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. She started crying and couldn’t stop. But sometimes. they were focused on the errand. or wouldn’t.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. I hope it makes a contribution. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas.PREFACE Accidents occur. just every so often. He was driving. I got back to work on them.D. and his mental state. finally. I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I don’t cry much any more. only a trimester or two earlier. lane deviation and all the rest. they are prone to other types of error as well. I was confused by the results I was getting. he’d taken the same course as she. And they crashed. He was very popular with other students. I’m pretty happy with it. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. I’m a fairly big guy. LISREL couldn’t. she was riding pillion. at least not with real tears. She had needed to go on an errand. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. He didn’t want to go. and this thesis is the result. I told her not to worry. The behaviour of the traveller. How important these factors are. programme. I like to watch boxing. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. to the weary traveler. they were frustrated and angry with each other. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. externally-focused frustration. xx . She had been badly injured. . They were hurrying. But. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. My research design needed a serious re-working. Her hands and voice quivered. but she’d nagged him. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. is a matter of debate … Obviously. I feel like it a bit right now. they cut across a lane too quickly. I didn’t recognise her at first. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. I knew the fellow. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. I wanted to throw in the towel.
Consistently over the years. Green. state of mind and physical well-being. 2002. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. Peters & Peters. This is particularly salient in developing countries. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. 2001. 2001).g. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2002). including the 1 . perceptual (Hong. anticipation. Graham. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. Sabey (1999). 2006. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system. Even after decades of study. commented that.. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers. policy-makers.2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 11). cognitive (Vaa. Furuichi & Kadoma. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. 1999). 1996. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. road. Ogden. Sleet.. Verwey. Mills & Vavrik. Mohan & Hyder. Trick. 2004). 2000). judgement. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. Olson.g. Iwasaki. 2000). highway engineers and automotive design specialists.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. such as Malaysia. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1. Scurfield. Theeuwes. for instance. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson. 2007. 2004). 2000. 2004) have been studied extensively. 2002) and road safety engineering (e. 2007. Stanton & Pinto. Enns.
hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. “the literature on personality has a long history. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour.332 drivers and 15.732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. A total of 10. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2004. 2003).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. 1983). as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem.351. The chapter 1. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. p. However. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. including the study of a large number of variables. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 2 . According to Dewar (2002b). More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. There was a total of 341. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. locus of control. 2007). with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2002. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. McKenna.790.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users.roadway.112). 1989). 21). 2005).
2002) and many others. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2005). 2001. Draskóczy. Lin. 1997). Rimmö. Parada & Cortes. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Historically. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. Özkan. 3). Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. Gal & Syna Desevilya. 2003. 2002. Elander. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 2000). 2004). Sumala & Zakowska. Wells-Parker et al. 2005. 2001. 1999. 1997). Severson. Ulleberg. Loo. 3 . Gonzalez. Shinar. Vasconcellos. 1997). 2006. Gidron. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2001). West & French. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. Schwebel. 2007). Stewart.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. often with widely varying results (Dewar. Dewar. 1979. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Blasco. 1993. 2004. 1997. 2005. Hwang. Lajunen & Kaistinen. Ball & Rizzon. 2004. aggression (Parkinson. Verwey. Barjonet & Tortosa. Wells. 2002. Hartos & Simons-Martin. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. 1994. Barrett & Alexander. Huang. Cohn. 2000. locus of control (Arthur. Renner & Anderle. 2003). 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. Trimpop & Kirkcaldy. 2002. 2006. Lajunen & Summala. 1991. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. Wu & Yen. 2002b. 1997). and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. Hence.
aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 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. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. A frequent criticism. Sümer (2003). Hampson & Morris. 1997. Speeding. for instance. 2004). has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. Parker. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. however. 1. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. 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. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin.e. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. externally-focused frustration. 2005). Noy (1997). in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown. in turn. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. 1997). 1996. leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable.e. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. vehicle..Increasingly.. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation. in particular.
Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3. p. situated as proximal variables. gender and ethnicity. 1. By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. 9).4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. (d) driver hopelessness. 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. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 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. 5 . (b) driving experience. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. 2005. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. By focusing on not only demographic. but also on their interactions. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. (e) driver aggression. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. (c) driver locus of control.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. 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.
94). road safety measures and public policy. 1993). Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker. The present research offers a perspective on this divergence of viewpoints by discussing how empirically-based models of behavioural processes can be strengthened through a priori integration with broader theoretical precepts. “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. 1997. Utzelmann.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. p. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. 2000). the plethora of theories available. 1974). Moreover. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. Laapotti. 2005. 2004). 6 . all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. Some authors have suggested that. Katila & Peräaho. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 2001. Rothengatter. 2004. Näätänen & Summala. in the applied sciences. Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. 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. an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. There is a growing sentiment that. Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Hatakka. 2004. 1997).
. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed.g. Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. 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. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. human motivation. attitude theory. 7 .g.. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. Che Ali. To the author’s knowledge. which deals with methodology. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and. 2001). 2001). 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. It is useful. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. This broader perspective. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. In doing so. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. in turn. although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. 1.
driving experience. Babin. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. 1B and 1C). destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. at the conclusion of Study 1C. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. or outcome. the effects of selected demographic (age. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. second. p. Black. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. 2006. each entailing data collection from a different sample. 711). In Study 1. 2003). freeway urgency. driving (experience. gender. The final result. In each successive study. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. 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. aggression. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. Study 2 and Study 3. first. In this case. variables (Sekaran. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting.however. Anderson & Tatham. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. hopelessness. cultural background). The present research applied an ex post facto research design. externally-focused frustration.
leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia. verbally administered psychometric instruments. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. a third model was constructed.are most important in predicting. 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. After the initial model-building had been completed. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected.to 45-minute trips. Such predictive capabilities were considered to be of importance in any examination of the dynamics leading to risks of roadway crashes and fatalities. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. over the course of 30.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. 9 . Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. in fact. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. In Study 3. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. Again. 1. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here. In Study 2. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires.
Finally. Baxter & Campbell. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. 2002. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. Keskinen. Stradling. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. Katila & Laapotti. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. The relationship between the manner 10 . accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic. The present research. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Boyce & Geller. Are the attitudes. 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. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. Manstead. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. 1997).Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. However. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. at least to a certain extent. as well. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else. while recognising the distinction. 1990). The present research included procedural elements to mitigate.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”. “peaceful”. 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.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. 1989). A developing country in Southeast Asia. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”.1. “reckless”. “bullies” and “selfish”. 2006). 2007). often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. 2007). to a rapid increase 12 . economic expansion. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. industrialisation and motorisation. These are thought to have contributed. “impatient”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. 2005). “friendly”.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”. inconsiderate and aggressive. 2007). “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. Recently. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that. there were 341.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. “patient”.1 2. Over 6. “laid-back” and “considerate”. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. 2003). they indicated “angry”.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. 2005). and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. in order of frequency. 2007). the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “discourteous” (Davin Arul. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. In newspaper reports. in aggregate. 2005).
000 vehicles (Law. 2005).304 in 1994 to 6.287 in 2006. from 189. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.417 47. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years. In Malaysia.425 2003 6. 2007). Radin Umar.815 2005 328. 2005). 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. Subramaniam & Law. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Table 2.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia.415 52.645 54.7111 2003 298.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.653 2004 326. Generally.741 38. & Wong. 2003.012 19.228 9.264 2006 341.20 deaths per 10.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.236 49. Studies 13 .252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.425 5.200 9. in Malaysia.885 35. Table 2.395 2006 6.287 9. Mohd Zulkiflee.091 37.286 9. 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.98 deaths per 10.218 2005 6.891 8. 2005).2). Abdul Rahman. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. This suggests that studies.000 vehicles in 2006. one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.552 37.040 2004 6. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.
05 1.997 14. 14 . or an average of RM4.378 11.448 17.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.07 2. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.85 2.76 22.92 2. It has been reported that. Palamara.023 5.22 150 0.820 13. 2002.418 100 19.08 585 2.205 11.034 4.967 100 19.178 15.94 2.593 11.16 90 0.416 6.65 2.85 147 0.37 337 1.315 17.23 2.41 302 1.49 450 2.80 203 0.47 280 1. 2005).431 7.10 3. 2003) Age 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 >75 Krishnan and Radin Umar (1997) pointed out that the prevalence of traffic injuries and fatalities among drivers.05 2.56 3. Table 2.91 984 4.7 billion. 2003).07 2.15 43 0.21 3.90 159 0.709 8. in 1999 alone.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.81 2.81 3.025 9.049 15.84 1.50 979 4.26 463 2.61 99 0.038 13.947 10.08 1.921 100 20. 2001). has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country. general insurers paid RM1. Morrison & Ryan.11 2.40 1.309 10.15 572 2.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.68 3.08 541 2.29 708 3.48 105 0.216 10.953 17.551 12.63 160 0.31 3.94 1.06 608 3. and particularly among younger drivers.72 554 2.65 121 0.67 billion. 2001.77 3.48 323 1.81 1.64 135 0.05 2.29 2.341 12.110 10.005 15. or about 2.08 2.71 543 2.15 3. 2006).99 164 0.27 458 2.620 7.94 625 3.469 15.68 128 0. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.389 6.92 1.086 9.180 10. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.4 billion to RM5.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.803 9.45 30 0.97 1.67 206 0.54 708 3.82 1.
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. (Bernama. 2006). But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. lane definition. The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. which is actually a nightmare. Some seven years later. 2005). 1999).Yet. 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. In 1999. or the pain of the maimed. 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. Criticisms of road configuration. 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 . In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 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. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. if people want to die? (Lim. The economic consequences can be estimated. What else can we do. traffic congestion.
In 2006. Krishnan & Radin Umar. Generally. as compared with 1. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. In a recent newspaper interview. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. 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 . 2001. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. given greater risks of accident.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. for instance. 2007). A leading university professor and Director-General of Malaysia’s Institute for Road Safety Research similarly noted that: Malaysian drivers are not good in safety routines. is often mentioned as a factor. newspaper columnists. Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 2006).(Abdul Rahman et al. 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. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. 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. serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. 2005). 2007). how they think. unlike in other countries. 2005). though. 1997). Researchers. Who they are.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers.
Ward. Law. This is. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. (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. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. perhaps. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities.1. Law et al. 1996). MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. For instance. In none of the studies of the MSP. Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues. Mohd Nasir. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes. 17 . 2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. Chalmers & Langley. conspicuity and excessive speeding. Musa. injuries and fatalities. Bartle & Truman. 2007).general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. Ahmad Hariza. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. however. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. respectively. In the same study. rather than personality factors.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry. In a separate study. 2. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. Radin Umar. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity.
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. The very monotony of the road surface. 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. has linked peninsular communities. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. 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. since 1994. they are accident prone. This. generalising to all driving environments and situations. including speeding and falling asleep at the wheel (“N-S Highway”. he argued that national leadership intended it to be both a symbol of progress. 121-122). Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 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. however. resulted in a myriad of problems. the factor that made the high speeds possible. 110). Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p.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. According to Williamson.122). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (p. 1996). 18 . He argued that.
personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do). According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). bad road conditions. 1993). roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p. Christ. Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems.2. 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. 1993. experiential. but rather 19 . The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle. Among engineering factors. 784). the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. 1991). West and French. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. personality characteristics (Elander. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. levels of driving experience and.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic.2 2. This has included the examination of age and gender. 62). by far. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. Among human factors.2. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. particularly. Åberg. etc. Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash.
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. Ranney. 2002. unclear. organisational climate (Caird & Kline. Lajunen & Summala. However. 1997. prior accident experience (Lin et al. 1994). the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. 377). 2004). (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 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. Haddon (1963).by the behaviour of drivers. weak. 641). or at least predict. 2005). and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. 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. to a large degree. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. Further. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 2004) and other contextual variables. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. in reviewing early findings on human factors in this field. While the system-centered approach aims at creating those road conditions that reduce the chance of accidents in advance. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. 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.
Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. Underwood & Milton. Wagenaar & van Koppen.2. accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way.2. 21 . 1996. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. there has been an interest in driver personality. driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data.2.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. 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. 1997a). the lack of replication of many studies.1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 2002. 2005).2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. 2003). and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 1993). and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p. 2. information processing. 321). 482). Nevertheless. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. Preston & Harris. 2003). the picture that emerges is indeed grave. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. 1961. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg.
4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. traffic and transportation. or the psychological support for intervention. eoncompassing engineering. in the field of traffic. but that complex traffic 22 .Transportation systems shape the structure of our communities and impact the well-being of individuals … People’s reactions to the inconvenience and discomfort of a particular journey depend on many intertwined psychological processes including personality disposition.654-655.2.2. Ochando. or peculiar to. Indeed. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. medicine. transportation planning. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific 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.” (p. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. Temes and Hermida (2001) found. psychology. 4). ergonomics. To wit. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with. 3). These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp. 246). in a Spanish survey. 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 2002). anthropology and sociology. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. According to Rothengatter (2001).
24).behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. 1997. Garner and Zwi. 1995. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. 2000). both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. the road environment comprises the vehicle. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. Ergonomics has made a contribution. as well. in particular. 2003. the road infrastructure and other road users. Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. surrounding environments and 23 . and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. 2004. ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. 2007. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies. Peden & Hyder. In a recent special edition. Johnston. over the past ten years. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. Stanton (2007) noted that. Odero. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. In the broadest sense. emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the study of cognitive processes. 2002). Hyder & Peden. 1158). the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. Wilson.
2001). Increasingly. error and cognitive modelling. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. Studies of human factors engineering of intelligent transportation systems are becoming increasingly important in the design of in-vehicle safety systems and driver decision support technologies (Lenior. 26). Jannssen.3 2. “This school of though. 2006. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . Noy. predict and modify road user behaviour. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena.tasks to human capabilities and limitations. ergonomic inputs into this body of knowledge are shifting from a perspective of understanding peoples’ interactions with driving-related artefacts to a role that contributes to the design of interacting systems in order to satisfy user needs and desires (Stanton. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Neerincx & Schriebers.3. Walker. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities. 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. particularly the notions of mental load. Theories and Models In attempting to understand. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 2004). and “Generation Three” ergonomics. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. 2. though. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001). 1997. Stanton & Young.
which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. often in mathematical form. p. or accident-causing behaviours. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. 1969). 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. 2. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. but for the purposes of this thesis. 2000. in traffic psychology. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. 1985). there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates.3. whether theories should explain everyday driving. 2005). 1995).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. p. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. On the other hand. this may be due to 25 . many models have been proposed. Healy. 2005. To a degree. In traffic psychology. or both. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. A-18) Often.
minimise delay and driving time. I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. enjoy driving. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic.3.. Notwithstanding these difficulties. social. 2. attitudes. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. cognitive.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations. feel in control. 26 . it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. etc. 2004. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. avoid obstacles. For over ninety years. 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. 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. 2002). 2005). risk adaptation theories. given the complexity of human behaviour. … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation.the imprecise definition of concepts. and most of the time is not especially influential. and emotional determinants. perceptions. Rothengatter. Instead. 189). motives and personalities (Robbins. not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that.
aggression. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. conscientiousness. irresponsibility and driving related aggression. the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. McRae &Costa. Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. According to Rothengatter (2002). extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. 1995. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). for instance. agreeableness and openness – the authors found low conscientiousness and low agreeableness to be valid and generalisable predictors of accident involvement in both occupational and non-occupational settings. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. anxiety and driving anger. neuroticism. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. 1980) and other safety outcomes. poorer perception of traffic signs (Loo. Clarke and Robertson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 47 studies reporting relationships between accident involvement and the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM). “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. 2000). However. 1979). while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. aged 16 to 29 years. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. 1990). without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators. but not occupational accidents.
could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. 2. his or her accident proneness.finding. Research by board statisticians. p. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. the average number of accidents. found first that the frequency of accidents. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. sensori-motor skill. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness.3. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. personality.152). 1962. 1984). ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander. 1993. during and following the war years. p. According to Haight (2004). The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . occupational and otherwise. but persists today. in certain cases.3. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. 290). λ. just as one can meaure height. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. West & French. “irrespective of environment. If each individual has a unique λ-value. In 1917. in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. weight and perhaps even intelligence. 1920).
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. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. p. more probably psychological (p. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. in any sample. Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. at home. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. produced a positive. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. “Because crashes are so infrequent. in successive years. 2004). noting that. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. subjects reported significant. 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. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore. 2004). 1929. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. 1939) and many others. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. The accident-prone concept. 195). but did not take into consideration whether. 1997). 294). None of the experiments. in a Finnish telephone survey. 422). inappropriate. made an assumption that. inadequate or irrelevant. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. 1956). by devising clever tests. Farmer and Chambers (1926. Johnson (1946). perhaps physiological. 1991.out what that value is. as well. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). Scores on the λ dimension. however. in traffic or when playing 29 .
It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person. The concept itself is ill-defined. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =..2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. Pijl. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. 1980. 1993). because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . sports and family settings. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. Visser. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed. Stolk. therefore. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. So.sports.3. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation. 562). roadway.05. 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. 2. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. Ultimately. 8-9). pp.3. 1998).
they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. Elander et al.3. crash barriers.accident proneness (Chmiel. experience more accidents than others. in fact.. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk. For example. substantially. 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.4. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. 2.3. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. 2. albeit not crash occurrence. The introduction of divided highways. Wilde (1982. However. suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. A driver who enters a construction zone. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. following their review of the literature. early studies showed that the actual safety effects of engineering interventions often were much less than expected stimulated an interest in the way that drivers reacted to them. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour.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. 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. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. 2000). 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. That is. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. large earth-moving 31 . in a study of driving on icy roads.
Fosser & Sætermo. Ranney. 1988. Sagberg. 1997). for example. 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. Michon. according to the theory. In two separate studies. 2001. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2008. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. in turn. Collectively. flat. Wilde. When others (Haight. 14). 2005). McHugh & Pender. “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. 1989. 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. according to the theory. observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. p. a driver motoring along a wide. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. is if the level of target risk is reduced.” (Fuller. at least until the target risk level was reached. Conversely. That is. Initially. 1986. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. 1994.vehicles and warning flags. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. 2002). postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate.
but they are not defined in psychological terms. (p. Corrigan & Coombs. the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. 53). however. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. 2001. 1977). 1994. 2008. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. the community. 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.” (Vaa. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. “Costs and benefits are central to the model. p. Rothengatter. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. 2002).. Fischoff. a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. Also. To the contrary. 1151). More than any other driving theory. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. pay sufficient attention to risk. 2002). p.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. Slovic. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Lichtenstein. 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. 2004).. General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 223). 2004). 1989. Evans 33 .
Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. and 34 . 26). after a similar review.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. 81). drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. 2004. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. for example. Rather. O’Neill and Williams (1998). p. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. At this point. 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. 92). some degree of risk during the performance of this task. or expecting. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. 1987. In addition. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. 2. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. In other words. Summala.4.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory. zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. While overcoming many of the criticisms levied at RHT with regard to the concepts of target risk and the risk discrepancy comparative process. 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. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving.3. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy.
A large number of studies show that external motives. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. and specific driver actions. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Summala (1996. 2002. 2. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts.3. Hataaka.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. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. for instance. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. Glad & Hernetkoskis. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. 1996. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.1). age and social variables. Van der Hulst. Meijman & Roghengatter. 1999).learn how to respond safety to. what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. as a result. much of which arises from personality. 1998. Keskinen. The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. Reeder et al. such as time pressure. 35 . 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). On the other hand. Gregersen.
at the same time. 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. (2004) noted that Summala’s task cube achieves its goal of conceptualising the driving process in ergonomic terms and praised the prime role given to motivational factors but.MOBILITY NEEDS LEVEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSING Decision making Supervisory monitoring FUNCTIONAL HIERARCHY Vehicle choice Trip decisions MOTIVATIONAL MODULE: MOTIVES EMOTIONS Attention control Perceptual-motor Control (constant mapping. but that is not 36 . Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 1996) Keskinen et al. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. 15). seemingly concurrently. criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p. for example.1: Task Cube (from Summala. 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. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. a property absent within the task cube concept.
Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. However. 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. high speeds. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala.. affective states).g.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 2000) 37 . 1982.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p. Fuller (2000. 252). 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde.3. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. unsafe behaviour of other road users) or over-estimation of capability (through lack of experience or impairment) and the driver is pushed closer to the critical control threshold.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. Most of the time. unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. 2. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.1).
Since 1985. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. providing an account of the way in which attitudes. for the most part. time pressure). According to the TRA. 126). generally referring to a positive or negative 38 .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. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment. p. 1991). 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.3. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. however.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. 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. 1985. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. Generally.6. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 2004. 40). been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. 1985. Fishbein & Ajzen. (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. emotional state. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. 2. and Keskinen et al. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research.3. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. objects. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour. p. Two limitations have been noted. institutions or issues (Chaplin.Fuller’s theory has. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes.
are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control.2). and (b) the person’s subjective norm or perceptions of social pressure to perform the given behaviour (“most people who are important to me think that I should/shouldn’t run the amber light at crossjunctions”). he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). however (Sharma & Kanekar. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility.3. see Figure 2.7. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”). To deal with this uncertainty.” (Azjen. 2. 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. 1985. 24). “Even very mundane activities.judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. 2007). behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”). then. 39 . p. which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. According to the TPB.
2002. when intention is held constant.. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. or sense of self-efficacy. 2003). including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. 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. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian. 253). creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control. Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. 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. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level. 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. greater perceived control (i.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.e. Further. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. p.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. 40 . In one study. 1989) Within the theory.
pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 . Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption.4. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. for instance.2. 2002). subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. 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.4 2. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales. Austin and Carson (2002). 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.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. Attitude toward speeding. there has been no shortage of empirically-based models that show statistical relationships between specific variables related to given situations. (2005) in their Malaysian study (see sect. vehicles. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data. based on data extracted from police record forms. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference. but after controlling for distance travelled.In another study.2). roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted. This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002).1. 2. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model. 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. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers.
4. Swaddiwudhipong. the vehicle (V). R..g. the road (R) and the environment (E).2 Process Models 2.4. Seow & Lim. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. within specific situational contexts. Nguntra. More recently. 1999).locations and settings (e. PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2. 1994). Law. E and especially H factors. 2000). and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. 1997. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently. 1997) 42 .4). Mahasakpan.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). 1998. however. 2. Koonchote & Tantiratna. Richardson & Downe.
283). arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and. contribute directly to crash outcomes.. on the other hand. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e.g. Factors within the distal context include not only road. Sümer (2003) used this as a point of departure for the construction of a contextual mediated model for predicting the effects of personality and behavioural variables on roadway crashes. sensation seeking. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p. aggression).4. there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. Therefore.. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. extraversion. as well. substance abuse) that. gender.2. age. it may influence crash risk through some other.2. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. By contrast. more proximal variable.5). reckless lane transitions or overtaking. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e. Personality factors within the 43 . on one hand.g.g. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. 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. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself. speeding.. Within the generic model.
cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. sensation seeking. 2003) 44 .g. 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. psychological symptoms.g. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. depression. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context. e. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. As such. risk taking.
1986). Tix and Barron. In Figure 2.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct. for instance. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism. 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. 2004).6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. 45 . mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.2. called the outcome. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. Also termed intervening variables. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. 2004) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei.4. M. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. Figure 2.2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. moderating or mediating effects. 2006). 2003). drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. If. while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). such that path c′ is zero. the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y.6(i).
1986). and the interaction or product of these two (path c). these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis.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. a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran.(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 testing the moderating effect. or independent variable (path a). 2003). the impact of a moderator (path b). there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 46 . Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. variable (see Figure 2.6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. or dependent. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny.
given wide 47 . hostility. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. dangerous drinking). he found that. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. Further. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour. psychoticism). Using structured equation modelling. anger). Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. However. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking.2. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. more relevant to the model he proposed.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. errors). verbal aggression. In turn. and non-professional students who were mostly students. hostility. anxiety.4. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study.
Here. Edward. 1920). 1919. lapses. in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. 1993). Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 . trust). 2002. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. sensation seeking patterns. applied the five factor. (1993) and others. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Elander et. 1995. 1998). Lajunen and Özkan (2005).739). driving style and other distal and proximal variables were the same at the time of the crash as they were when data were collected (af Wahlberg. Arthur. al. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. in most cases. McRae &Costa. Bell. Greenwood & Yule. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. responsibility.. 1990) to a similar analysis. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. conscientiousness (dependability. 2003. Tubré & Tubré.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. for high-λ individuals. Sümer. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). Day. Watson. personality model (Costa & McRae. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. as recommended by Elander et al. extraversion (interpersonal warmth. sensation seeking). it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2005. broad-mindedness). or “Big Five”. The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. agreeableness (helpfulness. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. In a subsequent study. Finally. 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.
have acted on those recommendations. Karanci. Sümer. phobia.2. Berument and Gunes (2005).aberrant driving behaviours. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. In another study.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. navy. air force and gendarmerie. for instance. 49 . Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. reported that driver anger. using a similar research design. self esteem. Sümer. They found that the effect of proximal variables. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. anxiety. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. Bilgic. including perceived control. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. 225). optimism. hostility. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. 2. Iverson and Rundmo (2002). prior to the present one. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model.4. material loss. In other words.
heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2. in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. 2002. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie.5. Campbell & Williams.Downe (2007).. Weinstein & Solomon. aggression) Safe Work Practices hazard identification and reporting risk avoidance procedural compliance use of safety devices and equipment occupational hygiene help-seeking and teamwork behaviour Experiential safety awareness domain-specific skill years of work experience prior accident experience Figure 2. 2003). they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger. Retting. uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Williams & Shabanova. 1995).5 2.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2.5. 1997. Yet.g..8).8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe. Odero et al. 2003. 2007) 2..g. 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. Type A.1.
overtake dangerously. at least in part. and by high levels of sensation-seeking.. specifically more likely to drive too fast. Bina. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. Vassallo et al. 1997b. tobacco smoking.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. 2007). Connery & Stiller. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. Billittier. the contrary appears to be true. Jonah. 221). follow too closely. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. 2002a. Harré. less emotionally mature. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. Moscati. 2001. in many cases. this is a reflection of lifestyle. However. Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. The former is less experienced at driving. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. Jehle. 2002a. 1986). Matthews & Moran. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. drive while fatigued. for these difficulties. irresponsibility and driving related aggression.The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. In fact. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. p. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. 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.
as age decreased. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. angry or sad (strong negative emotions). 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). Similarly. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. (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. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. indirectly. behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. Ulleberg. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance.39). age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. 1999. Justification of age-related hypotheses. In the present study. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. on crash and injury occurrence. Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. Vissers & Jessurun. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. In a nation-wide survey of American teens. 52 . Stevenson et al. it was hypothesised in the present study that. 2007). since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. and that young drivers. 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. 2002). This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills.
Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). it 53 . that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident. as age decreased. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. However. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. 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. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio.. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that. Monárrez-Espino.4). in addition to having a higher number of crashes. Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. Elliott. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Tavris.1. “In all studies and analyses. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours.failure to use seat-belts. Waller. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. MacGregor. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women.g. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. Chipman. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found.. 2004. for instance. for instance.5. for instance. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. it was also hypothesised that. without exception. 129). Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). and behaviours predictive of fatalities. darkness)” (p. as well. 2. p. Shope. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women.g. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. self-reported injury would also increase. more often at hazardous times (e.
Flyte & Garner. in a sample taken in the U. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. 2001). which typically took place during evenings and nights.S. to date. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. 1997. 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. 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. 525526). but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. Neighbors and Donovan (2007). Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. Lenard. for instance. reported more traffic citations and injuries. found that while male drivers. Dobson. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. 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. Woodcock. state of Washington. worldwide. (b) females drive increasingly more.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Welsh. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. Ball. 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. Lonczak. Brown. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. At the same time. While there is much of value in such an approach. This is important.
(1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). though. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. evaluated their driving skill lower. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed. In other research.. Lourens et al. et al. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. McKenna. Female drivers. In a study of Dutch drivers. and loss-of-control incidents. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. 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. showing that male drivers were. just as they had in 1978. on the other hand. were less frequently involved in crash situations. on crash and injury occurrence. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. 11). (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. 55 . involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. 2003). Laapotti. control of traffic situations. indirectly.anger. 2006. Turner & McClure. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. as per the traditional pattern. In the present study. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. 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. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. Forward. In a subsequent report.
more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. Levine. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Harper. Corry. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers. differences in fatalities persisted.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy.1. reported few differences between Australians and Finns.S. To a large degree. But. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. nonCatholic countries. Haliburton. lower rates of safety belt use. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. for instance. Lajunen. finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Marine. In one of the few studies reported. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors. Schlundt. Romano.2. 2005). he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. Garrett. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. Goldweig and Warren. On the other hand. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur.5. that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Summala and Hartley (1998).
Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. religion. on crash and injury occurrence. family honour. Karma.. indirectly. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. face saving. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. respect for elders. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. shame-driven. cooperation. Strong relationship orientation. They concluded that there were. respect for knowledge. 1999). prosperity. While religious affiliation. hard work. Education. peace. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay.2). humility. in fact. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice. piety. dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. prosperity and integrity. filial piety. Strong relationship orientation. hierarchical.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. polite behaviour. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . Family centeredness. Spirituality. 2005). Malay Differences have not always been consistent. brotherhood/sisterhood. respect for elders. In the present study. Table 2. 1999). family ties. Indirect communication. respect for elders. Conscious of what other people say about us. harmony with nature.. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God. 2000. cultural differences can be more subtle. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. courtesy. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. However. Roman et al. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. Fatalistic.
such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. passenger distractions different vehicles. Allied to this. Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. journey lengths. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences. as drivers become more experienced. 2.5.. increased experience usually. Keskinen. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Hatakka and Katila. 166). they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e.behaviour in traffic. directionality of the effect was not predicted. 2001). 1995. Lajunen & Summala. 1971). (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. etc. On the other hand.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. although not always. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. As experience grows. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. 2002).2.5. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. 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 . with different weather conditions. in a given road and traffic scenario.g. A large number of studies have shown that. and as such. Laapotti.
and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. direction and position Figure 2. Yet. 2004). GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. Hataaka and Katila (1992). or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. and sometimes confounded by gender differences. as individuals acquire experience. Internal models contain knowledge of route. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. in many studies of age and gender differences.9).by Keskinen. 59 . Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. environment. 2001). When using those at the top of the hierarchy. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al. 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. 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. Hatakka. 1996. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. It assumes that.
Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city.Laapotti et al. Justification of driver experience hypotheses. Young novice drivers. 1954). and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. Brown & Ghiselli..and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Peltzer and Renner (2003). showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa. Mintz. Ghiselli & Brown. 1949.g. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. 2004). and especially young male drivers. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. There is some evidence that female taxicab drivers may be at higher crash injury risk than male taxicab drivers but not risk of crash incidence (Lam. on the other hand. 2007). Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . for instance. was used in this study. 1948. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk. A simple measure of driving experience. Female novice drivers. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. such as problems in vehicle handling skills.
showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 . there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. In individual differences research. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). driving occurs (Dewar. for instance. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. McKenna.2. 1995. Generally. 282). crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. Rothengatter. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur.5. indirectly. First. Elander et al. technical or legal changes relating to road safety. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 2001. 1991). it is accepted that the more one travels. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p. 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. the miles they drive.. 1984). it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. 1986. 1984. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. 2002a). Wilde. and type of route where. the concept is much less well developed. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. Duncan & Brown.effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. Second.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. Pelz & Schuman. 1993). on crash and injury occurrence. 1971).
(1999) have argued that. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Christie. however. in countries like the USA. Evans (1991) and others. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. Mercer (1989) showed that. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. Williams & Shabanova. Towner and Ward. without correcting for annual mileage. 2007. Justification of exposure hypotheses. 2007. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. 2007). indirectly. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. (1993). Bina et al. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. Ferguson. 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. although much research does not (e. on crash and injury occurrence. Odero et al.hours than during the forenoon. (1986). Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes.. nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk.. 62 . 2003). female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations.. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Teoh & MCartt. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic.g. as defined by Elander et al. Cairns. 2006. Yet. 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. Lourens et al.
or internals. Holder & Levi.2..3. 1999). 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. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. 15). In contrast.g. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional.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. she separated the externality dimension into two. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent. people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. Lefcourt defined internal control (I) as the perception that positive or negative events are a consequence of personal actions and thus may potentially be subject to personal control. and second.1 Locus of Control 2.5. 1975. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. 63 . such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2.10). 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. Stanley & Burrows. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.5. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control. Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e.3. Levenson (1975.5. 2006. 1991. 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.3 Psychological Variables 2. Hyman.1. or externals . 1990). believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation.
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 2.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality .Luckner. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task. 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. 1989. 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.1. luck. According to Phares (1976). 64 .3. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.5. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. Sinha & Watson. They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects.
however. Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. French & Chan. however. 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. 1987). Attitudes toward fate have been shown to be instrumental in determining the level of risk that persons will take with regard to delaying treatment for illness (Chung. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. 1999). 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. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. 65 . but results have been inconsistent. In a subsequent study. which focused heavily on situational scenarios. those who see themselves as playing little or no part in the unfolding of evens will act in a less cautious manner. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. 39). s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. According to Brown and Noy (2004). Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. On the other hand. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content.
although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. Arthur et al. On the other hand. That is. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. (p. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. They found that. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. In a meta-analysis of information-processing. 1260). 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 . (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. Gidron. although internality was unrelated to DDB. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. 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). offences. In a much earlier study. In an important study. an internal locus of control was found to be associated with lower levels of crash involvement and with higher levels of cognitive ability. 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. cognitive. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores.
5. is based on the notion that … luck. Parsons and Schneider (1974) administered Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale to 120 male and female students in Canada. and the USA. Japan. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Canada and Japan. whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . as hypothesised. 122).3. 2. In very early research. France. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p.1. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. (1991).behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. indicated that. Noy (1997). Their results. Italy. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Germany. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. complexity and unpredictability.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Hsieh. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. Noting that Chinese culture. India. Israel. This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al.
Chinese of Malay extraction. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. This was very true for the locus of control variable. 68 . Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). In very early research. To the author’s knowledge. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. skill and ability. At the same time. 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. Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. Cheung. all internal characteristics. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. 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. only Cheung. Chinese and Indian populations.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. 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. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China.
2007). Özkan & Lajunen. but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon.5. Finally. 1975). Fox & Klerman. without objective basis. Sinha & Watson. 1997. Niméus. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Weissman. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala.3. (2003). 1991. First. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. Montag & Comrey. In the present study. it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. on crash and injury occurrence. 2. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. 2007. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Ohberg. Kovacs and Weissman. Beresford & Neilly. Cases usually 69 . hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck. 1973). Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. 1995. et al.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 2005). 1975. indirectly. 1987. McMillan. Hopelessness is one such trait in which the behaviour of individuals is derived from specific cognitive distortions that systematically misconstrue experiences in a negative way and. Gilbody. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.
They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. In the present study. Very early on. Selzer & Payne. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. and crash risk (Ohberg et al. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. in fact. including risky driving. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”.. indirectly. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression. and negatively predicted by extraversion. Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. Breen and Lussier (1976). luck. assertiveness and positive emotion. on crash and injury occurrence. 1990. Firestone & Seiden. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. 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. in a more detailed study. Second. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. 1997. 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. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. Prociuk. Several authors. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1974). for instance. 1962). 1976. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. 1962). Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). mental disorders and alcohol misuse. it was 70 . Henderson. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. 1998. Mendel.
Wells-Parker et al. including subjective feelings of stress. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. 2. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic. Bakou.5. Wright & Crundall. 2002). Barton and Malta. 2000. Underwood. 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.. learned cognitive scripts. Demakakos. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious.3. 2006). 2003. 1999. & Darviri. In a largely unrelated study. Lynch & Oetting. Malta & Blanchard. Chapman. Richards. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. physiological arousal. 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. learned disinhibitory cues. and deindividuation.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Chliaoutaks. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Filetti. 2000. Koumaki. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. 71 . Tzamalouka. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. Mizell. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. Deffenbacher. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Binzer (1999) suggested that hopelessness may play a moderating role in the effects of locus of control on some psychiatric symptoms associated with unconscious motivations. 2002.
threat to own safety and self-eesteem. stress induced by time pressure. Talley. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. Bettencourt. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. as another. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). 1976. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. However. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. 1962). and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Houston. Snyder. Crowson. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 . though. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. Groeger (2000). rather than a cause of. lack of control over events. through the use of self-statements. Schwebel et al. 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). the display of aggression (p. More recently. cultural driving norms and situational conditions. Ellis. such as TAPB. Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. (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.
insecurity about status. 2006. 2001). 1999. Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Magnavita. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. Karlberg. of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Sani. 1999. impatience.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments.6 2. 2000. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur.. 2. on crash and injury occurrence. Bettencourt et al. Rice. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic.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. and specific content. 2002. In the present study. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. competitiveness. 2006). aggression. James & Nahl. Sato. 1985). Frueh & Snyder. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. It was also hypothesised. Blumenthal. TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. al. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. Carbone. Williams & Haney. Later still. Thurman. 1981. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Kumashiro & Kume. Undén. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. (2003). Narda. Kamada. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). Miyake. Elofsson & Krakau. 1999). indirectly. that the total amount. Petrilli. 73 . 1998.6. Lynch. Deffenbacher. McKee.
Lafont and Lagarde (2005). Raikkonen. Zzanski & Rosenman.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. Karlberg et al. Nabi et al. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. studied police officers in Italy. Consoli. In none of these studies. however. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. West. (1998). violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. Chiron. In a correlational study of British drivers. 1989. Nabi. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. 1990). Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. similarly. socio-professional category. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. where Type A drivers were 4. Chastang. 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. 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. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. 1979) and number of accidents. was driving frequency. category of vehicle. for instance. however.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. Other authors have examined which of the behavioural dimensions of TAPB has the strongest impact on driving outcomes. but not with accident risk. Although their research design accounted for the influence of potential confounds. age. gender. driving style. focused on the time urgency component 74 . 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. alcohol consumption.000 employees of a French oil and gas company.
all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. At the same time. Glass. Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. 2. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data.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. on the other hand. namely “externally-focused frustration”. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). ethnicity. 1977). Of the four BIT factors. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. 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). Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. then use of the Type A/B 75 . The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. Gender. Miles and Johnson (2003). as measured by the student version of the SJAS. 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). stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes.6. In a subsequent study.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness.
thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. They argued that it would be preferable. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. At the present time. locus of control. ethnicity. including gender. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. In the present study. driving experience. In neither of their studies. hopelessness. Similarly. 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. 13). on the other hand. that are measured by the BIT scale.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . though. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. Specifically. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. To the author’s knowledge. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. 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. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p. although ethnicity. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics.
77 .. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Nabi et al.hostile automatic thought. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence. Further. externally-focused frustration. 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. 1993) and. 1985). Miles & Johnson. 1986. freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence.. 2005. 2003. West et al. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics.
Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. aggression (see Figure 3. 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. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic).1).3).2). hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries. In Study 1C. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. each study explored the extent to which demographic. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. In Study 1B. 1B and 1C. the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A. 78 . 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. 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. Then. 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. 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. with the addition of a third psychological variable.
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
3.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state. 1994). For the purposes of the present research. Weissman.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. affective. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. cognitive. 3. It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. 25). For each of the five studies undertaken. Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. In the present research.2. but not chance. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. a separate score for internality (I).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies. a thought process that expects nothing.2. Lester and Trexler (1974). overlapping and ambiguous. a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. 1999). According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . hostility and aggression are often inconsistent.
1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. In the present research. the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . Lynch & Morris. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. 3. Vallières.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).2. 1996).expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. expressed through the presence of irritability. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. were also investigated. Deffenbacher. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. frustration. emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. 2003. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. hitting or interpersonal violence. Specifically. The effects of participants’ total aggression. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness. Oetting. social alienation and paranoia. through fighting. 1957. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). 2005). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. and. Bergeron & Vallerand. (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation.
2. 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. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e.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.g.. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.. (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. was defined as indicative of Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP). and. being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies. 1998). 3. competitiveness. frequent lane changing. characterised by excessive impatience. not allowing others to merge or overtake. hit or kill another individual.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack. the BIT score.
g. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. and.2.3.3 3. 3. Then. a “1” was scored if the participant reported that they had sought treatment at a medical clinic or had required hospitalisation as a result of physical injury sustained during the crash and a “0” was scored if the participant reported that the crash had resulted in no damage or only damage to the vehicle.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. while driving.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. (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..8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash. in Study 1A. 88 .2. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.them (e. the influence of driving experience. travel frequency. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested. In the resulting measure of this variable. to the extent of inattention conditions. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. In the resulting measure of this variable. 3. Then. three demographic variables (driver age.
travel frequency. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. 3. three demographic variables (driver age. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. the influence of driving characteristics.3. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. In this study. Then. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 . hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested. In Study 1B. Then. 3. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. Then. the psychological variables and BIT were examined.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. Then. In this study.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. three demographic variables (driver age. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. the influence of driving characteristics. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control.2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. travel frequency. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. Figure 3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. hopelessness. Figure 3. Finally. 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. three moderating effects were measured: (a) the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT. Finally.
4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated.3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 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. In Study 3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the influence of experience. Figure 3.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers.3. Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. 3. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience. Finally. Finally.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT. In Study 3. and (b) taxi experience. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed. Figure 3. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. Then. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. 90 . This was justified for three reasons. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. 3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. First.
1. Second.1.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4: Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on injury occurrence Y Y Y Y Y 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 188.8.131.52 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. Third. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures. 3.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2. the measurement of hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts would have required a level of attention and concentration on the part of the drivers that could have distracted them from the safe operation of their taxicabs.2. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .
2.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.3.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.1.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT score H8.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.2.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.Table 3.2.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.3: Age will have a negative influence Aggression Y Y Y Y Y Y H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.
Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13. within a 14-month period.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.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. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B. using the same procedures as in Study 1.5 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters.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. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13. All participants had a valid driving licence but had indicated that a motorcycle was the mode of transportation most of the 93 .3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5.Table 3.
3.5. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured. while participants were driving. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately.2 Research Instruments 3. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or. Stokols. Data collection took place within the taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip. Novaco. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). by postal mail. although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. during a point to point trip. 1978).g. Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. In all cases. in the case of Study 3 participants. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. Stokals & Campbell.2. High total scores on the scale are considered to be indicative of Type A behaviour while low total scores were considered to be indicative of a type B approach to driving.. participants had to have a minimum of six months’ experience as a taxicab drivers and no gaps in their taxi operator’s license longer than three months. For inclusion in the study.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour.time when they travelled. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.5. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ.
Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me.2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. 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.” “On a clear highway. I try to move that lane as soon as possible. I usually drive a few kilometres above the speed limit. of items 24 Sample items “When I am in a traffic jam and the lane next to mine starts to move. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A. On each form. Table 3. Their analysis revealed four dimensions. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions.91) were found to be internally consistent. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. Freeway urgency 14 III. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. as indicated in table 3.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.2. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . with a coefficient alpha of .” II. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).80. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. to school or to an appointment with someone. In a later study.” “While travelling to work (or to school). Usurpation of right-ofway No.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration.
ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). References to “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. 3. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives.5.2. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. 96 .Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. Luckner (1989) noted that this instrument has among the highest reliability and validity of all locus of control tests and is particularly applicable when gearing instruments to broad linguistic structures and varying academic levels. References to the faster. 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. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. 1974).” “I get into fights more than most people. Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression. Table 3. 1993. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3.3). of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.” “If I’m angry enough. a sample item of which is “I might as well give up because there is nothing I can do about making things better for myself”.3. Of the 20 true-false statements. Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. 1982. anger.2. 3. and five subscales measure physical aggression. 1996). High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. I may tell them what I think of them.” “When people annoy me.” “When someone really irritates me. Tanaka et al.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.5.” 97 . if endorsed. I may mess up someone’s work. High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness.2. I might give him or her the silent treatment. verbal aggression.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.3 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) This 20-item scale contains true-false statements that assess the extent of negative expectancies about the immediate and long-range future (Beck & Steer.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. Each of the 20 statements is scored 1. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. or 0.5. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them. Durham. Beck et al. 2005. if not.
(1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.71 to .88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren. derogation of others and revenge respectively. 1997. Williams.2. 3. 2000). Cascardi & Pythress. age.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. of Items 11 10 9 30 Sample Items “If I could get away with it. derogation of others and revenge – were identified and are included as subscales (see table 3. Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . Table 3. Boyd.92. Snyder et al. with coefficient alpha values of . 5 = “all the time”). 98 . Three factors – physical aggression.” “I want to get back at this person. gender.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information. . ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.88 and . I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . 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. Shapiro.5.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”.4).2.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.5. 1997.91 for physical aggression.” 3. 1996). Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris.
in random order.6. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. BHS.6 3. Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis. upon request. 99 . Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. In studies 1 and 2. AQ and HAT. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires.3. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. BIT scale and AQ. BHS. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. BHS. Levenson and BIT scale. Levenson. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. BIT scale. with an e-mail summary of results. (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”. After the briefing period. between the two forms of the BIT. Levenson. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. Study 1B: PIF. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind. Study 1C: PIF. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF.
as well. aged 22 to 24 years. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. analyses of variance (ANOVA). the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study.0. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. 3. Levenson Locus of Control scale. provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. BIT. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone. four female final-year undergraduate students.3.7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. Data collection took place in taxicabs. rel. Two to four times daily. AQ and Levenson scales. 13. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. with the remaining instruments administered in random order.5. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL. rel. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. The PIF was always administered first.5.2 Study 3 For study 3. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. Over the course of the trip. At initial contact. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. Independent-sample t-tests. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. 100 .6. 8. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. 2004). 2002). For safety reasons. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm.
1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: Age influence the level of BIT Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Locus of Control H4.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Hopelessness influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration 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: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: Age influence the Locus of Control Independent Sample tTest Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Hopelessness H5.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.Table 3.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.2: “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 H3.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.
2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13. the lower the BIT level H8.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.Table 3. the higher the BIT level H8.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.2: The higher Externality (Chance).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 H12.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10.3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: The higher the Internality.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: 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.
hopelessness. locus of control.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers. hopelessness. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 103 .7.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock. 3. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.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.Table 3.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14. 2000). locus of control.7.1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. In the present research. When significant differences were observed.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14. In the present study.
aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. In the present research.3.7. if so. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). 3. second. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. 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. In the present research.5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables.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. the direction of the relationship (positive or negative). externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.7. to test whether hopelessness moderated the P-BIT relationship.4 Linear Regression Analysis This analysis is used to determine if a relationship exists between a dependent variable and an independent variable and. Also. For instance. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control. In the present research. 3. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods. 104 . multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I). hopelessness.7. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation.
7. logistic regression. on the other hand.3. to (a) assess the validity of the instruments.7. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur. 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. 3. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. 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). and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. 710). SEM was carried out. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. In the present research.7 Structural Equation Modelling. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. using LISREL. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. “1” was scored if a crash had occurred and “0” if no crash had occurred.6 Logistic Regression Analysis Logistic regression is similar to linear regression but differs with respect to the nature of data that can be treated and in the manner in which coefficients are interpreted. as well as between several latent constructs” (p. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. That is. In the present research.
the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. (Hair et al. For Study 1C. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 .. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. p. the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. 745). 1998) – presently exists. 2006. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. in fact. 1998). the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. the better the model is said to fit. (1988). than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. including: (1) two absolute indexes. If a researcher’s theory were perfect. In the present research. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. Thus. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. According to Marsh et al. these can be classified as absolute fit indexes and relative or incremental fit indexes.well the measurement model reproduces the covariance matrix among indicator items That is.
the higher the probability associated with χ2. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit. 107 . 3. 3. For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12). pp. 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. an insignificant p-value is expected. 1998). the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. 3. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.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.. and a measure of parsimony fit. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis).1 Chi-Square (χ2). Thus. 2006).0. 2006). 112). the normed fit index (NFI). 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.7. 1998. one incremental index. Hair et al. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1.validation index (ECVI).10 indicate poor fit.7. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12).7.00 in which values greater than . However.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al.7. the ratio indicates a good fit. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne.7.7.
an RMR greater than .7. Values range from zero to 1.00. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.7.7. CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity.7. 3. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1.7. 3. Bentler & Bonnet. The index ranges between zero and 1. Thus. with higher values indicating better fit. it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. 2006). 3.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well.7.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model.00 being indicative of good fit.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.00 with value more than . 108 . Tanaka & Huba. the normed fit index (NFI.00 with value closes to 1. 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.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) One of the original incremental measures of fit..00. The index can range from zero to 1. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.00.
1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models.7.7. considering its fit relative to its complexity.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 109 ..7. Browne & Cudeck. In such cases. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which.7. Mulaik & Brett.00. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample.00. It should be noted that. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI.3. 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. James. 2006). designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best. 750). the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit. p. 3. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable. Although values range from zero to 1.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. Values range between zero and 1. 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. 1994). 2006.. Like other parsimony fit indices. in this case. means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index.
9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. p.3. The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution.7. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson.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. it is said to be positively skewed.05. 37). the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores. 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. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. 1956). In this case. 1976). which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. in this case. 3. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash. 1976.7. If the opposite holds. 2000). When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 . the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another.
1997). A commonly used guideline is that. Barrett & Morgan. 2005. Marcoulides & Hershberger. 111 . the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1.normality of variable distributions.
Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.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 33.3% 8. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.6% 15.5% 27.1% 536 100% 54.13 years (SD = 1.1% 562 57. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL). 4.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51.1.1 4. Table 4.9% 23. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.55).4% 269 27.9% 14. with a mean age of 20. There were 855 participants for whom the primary mode of transportation was the automobile and 133 for whom the motorcycle was the primary mode of transportation (see Table 4.5% 57.9% Total 441 100% 45.4% 146 14. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.4% 333 62. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.6% 82 15.1 Description of the Samples Age.6% 12.5% 6. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.1% 34. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years.1% 121 22. Then.9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 .CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research.1).
43 years (SD = 1.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. In Study 1C. followed by Malay (27.1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. Thus. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. with a mean age of 20. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. with a mean age of 20.63. In Study 1B. range from 18 to 29). range of 18 to 26).01 years (SD = 1.35. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.9 per cent). 113 . 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample.53. with a mean age of 19. range from 18 to 25). A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. 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. 149 taxicab drivers participated. In Study 1A.89 years (SD = 1.5 per cent). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males. In Study 2. In Study 3. range from 18 to 27).25 years (SD = 1.68. with a mean age of 20.
Table 4. they hailed from across the country (see table 4.3: 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 % 12.5 114 . The mean age was 43. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.01 20.2: Age.2.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. range from 23 to 73). SD = standard deviation 4.3 11.9 2.19 S.7 4. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5.responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.35 1. Kuala Lumpur.25 43.4% of the sample. Johor or Perak made up 53.63 11.89 20.43 19.2 7.65 Male Female Malay Ethnicity MalaysianChinese MalaysianIndian 105 175 88 73 133 196 127 164 49 0 68 87 81 33 55 202 166 128 66 52 31 49 43 23 26 Note: N=sample size . Table 4.5 8.1.19 years (SD = 11.65.68 1.3).1 6. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 2 and 3 Gender STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Mean Age 20.53 1.D.3% of the sample. 1. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.
but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4 4.9 0.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7.0 7.2 2.1 9.7 100 4.6 1.1.6 100 4.8 9.0 10.7 3.9% of the sample.9 7.4 0.4).7 11.2 17. Perak or Penang made up 50. As the sample was 115 .6 2.1.8 11.8 5. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.5 1.4 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.1% of the sample.5 14.2 3. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. Table 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 % 13.
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.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.70 or greater is generally considered acceptable (Nunnally. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 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. 4. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. In the present research. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 1978). This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran.intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers.2. 2000). 116 . 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 4.2 4.5). The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1. the higher is the internal consistency of the measure.
727 .740 .827 .737 .881 α .782 .739 .808 .720 .798 .756 .824 .784 .906 .782 .772 α .718 .711 .783 .707 .904 .830 .890 .808 .910 . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .720 .783 .715 .715 .702 .740 .5: Summary of Internal Reliability Coefficient Results Study 1A (N=301) Study 1B (N=302) Automobile Drivers (student sample) Study 1C (N=252) Variables No.742 .Table 4.701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .788 .811 .887 .703 .714 .781 .747 .741 .817 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .749 .810 .738 .701 .730 .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 .754 .734 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .727 .786 .733 .735 .774 .
929 .804 Study 1C . we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable.811 . it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures. confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.05 indicate good fit.802 4. 1998). 205).805 .953 .80 or above). and those greater than . values ranging from . Byrne. with minimal error variance caused by wording. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model. 1998).80.804 .903 . more than . fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.808 Study 2 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. In Study 3. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.2.2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale.807 Study 1B .958 .10 indicate a mediocre fit.6.2.916 .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 . RMSEA values less than .800 .801 .806 .3 Validity Test Results In the present research. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne. 1998). ordering or other test construction factors” (p.807 .08 to .857 .804 . 1998. 1985). The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. depending on which is used (Byrne.876 . only Form A was used. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values.4. 118 .803 . Table 4.
00 1.000 .097 .1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research.96 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.048 .00 1.00 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 .95 1.047 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .97 1.089 .00 1.99 .91 .000 . A third statistic.Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.92 1.96 .2.7: 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 . externally-focused frustration. indicating good fits.000 .00 1.061 . and both GFI and CFI were more than . RMSEA values in each case were less than .00.077 .93 .99 .99 .7. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .00 . If the value of CFI exceeds . the higher the goodness-of-fit). it is possible to have negative GFI.000 .00 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.00 .96 .98 1.91 . 1992).92 .070 .98 .074 . 4.98 1. drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.99 .97 .098 .100.97 1.98 . the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved. Table 4.000 .097 .024 .000 .00 (the closer to 1.3.98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.99 .00 .96 .00 1.90. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.00 1.90.00 1. and destination-activity orientation. freeway urgency.000 .00 1.00 .92 .00 1.054 .00 . As shown in Table 4. This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.
91 .96 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.92 .97 .081 .93 .8.3.93 .063 .96 .2.98 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.000 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.081 .058 .100.96 . anger (ANG). GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index. Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P). CFA revealed that parameter values for I.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) .073 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges. RMSEA values were less than .98 .98 .3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale The AQ was used to measure driver aggression in Study 1B and 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population) and in Study 3 (with taxicab drivers). Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).93 .3. hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 .085 .98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).00 .052 .059 .071 .97 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.96 . verbal aggression (VER).99 .93 .085 .096 .4.2.93 .91 .90.93 .95 .93 .92 .95 1.92 .091 .91 .030 .083 .95 . Table 4. and both GFI and CFI were more than .99 .
081 .90.073 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.97 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .098 . Table 4. RMSEA values were less than .9).98 .98 .100. A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.070 .97 .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 4.083 .055 .98 .081 .95 .(IND). Table 4.98 .047 .97 .98 .10).99 .98 .92 .089 .94 .97 .90.98 .95 .97 .92 .096 .97 . derogation of others and revenge. CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.095 .058 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.090 . RMSEA values were less than . and both GFI and CFI were more than .3.098 .96 .025 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .94 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. indicating good fit (see Table 4. indicating good fits (See Table 4.97 .93 .98 .98 .2.98 .97 .98 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges.96 .088 .96 .100.97 .98 .92 .070 .97 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.088 .
064) 1.126(.356 (.192(.195 (..190) 1.280) -.179(.280) -.280) .280) -.140) -.582(.719(. 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 1.085) 1.140) .410(.188(.085 (.280) .280) .091(.080(.260) .107) 1.280) .239 (.106) 1.280) -.140) -.140) -.962 (.297 (.140) -.140) . 2006).4.656(.3 Normality.219 (.010 (.278(.107 (.280) .146(.297(.409(.351 (. Table 4.226 (.082 (.920(.140) -. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.280) .102) 1.280) .805(.140) . 1997). Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.140) .192) 1.020 (.140) -.091(..11: Normality Tests.140) .280) -.022 (.154(.256 (.278(.379(.037(.140) -. indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality.323 (.280) .332 (.409(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.140) -.140) .069) 1.353(.280) .140) .280) -.120) 1.126(.140) .085 (. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.140) -.183) 1.05).280) -. Table 4.280) .099) 1.099(.560(.191) 1.091) 1. 2005.241(.183) 1. Marcoulides & Hershberger.560(.064(.280) -.064(.280) .057) 1.403(.179(.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.331(.511(.034 (.408(.246(.428) .204(.280) -.140) .453(.280) .085) 1.105 (.203(.099(.052) 1.875(.140) -.186) 1.297(. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al. In all cases.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 .099) 1.094 (.140) -.
153) .423(.338 (.919 (.359 (.435) -.247) 1.799(.324(.940(.463(.417) -.510) 1.131(.110 (.Table 4.264) .533) .210) .852(.713(.247) .106(.256(.052) 1.100) .501(.805 (.223 (.279 (.911 (305) 1.841(.375) 1.681(.153) .153) .306) .276 (.153) .267) .306) .306) -.417) -.443(.104) 1.913(.219) .057) 1.962(.022 (.153) .135) 1.426) .417) -.435) -.024 (.088 (.001 (.360) .359 (.277(.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 .986 (.051) 1.053(.366(.142(.214) 1.209(.157) .003 (.719(.147(.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 1.219) -.435) -.064) 1.266 (.130(.084) 1.306) -.807 (.417) -.467(.259) .270) 1.210) .198(.852(.370(.812(.051) .153) .629(.435) .007(.101) 1.159(.979(.099) 1.360) -.435) -.210) .195 (.306) -.537(.414(.219) .392(.915(.265) 1.300(.147(.435) -.271(.048(.417) .219) -.102) .715(.822 (.244(.435) -.451(.435) -.317) 1.052) 1.210) .417) -.567(.884(.210) .210) .030(.948(.417) .154) -.153) .138(.354 (.210) .306) -.469) 1.327 (.952(.293 (.959 (.210) .153) .360) .567(.138) 1.503(.306) .153) .978(.417) .106(.053(.847 (.120(.153) .297 (.366) 1.156(.153) .210) -.219) .210) -.360) .160 (.153) 983(.070 (.098) 1.913 (.128 (.219) .011 (.024 (.295(.962 (.994(.972(.098) 1.417) -.417) -.640(.321) 1.062(.306) .306) -.362(.540(.153) .113 (.187) 1.306) .497(.417) .973(306) .153) -.210) -.236(.128) .276(.106 (.186(.306) -.478(.153) -.022 (.417) -.006(.219) .219) -.
(2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4.13). column c). For motorcycle drivers. However. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. Table 4.12. injury occurrence was much higher. if so. 124 .3 per cent being hospitalised.4. whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4.12.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes.12. column a). column b). 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. with 44.12: 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.
involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Table 4. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 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 .
Table 4. Table 4. 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.05). crash occurrence and crash injury. Study 1C. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables. 126 . standard deviations and relationships between distal. in Study 1B.15 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. and destination-activity orientation. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Study 1B. Also.16 shows means.05). standard deviations and relationships between distal. All these correlations were significant (p<. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4.5 4.5.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence. However. BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). standard deviations and relationships between distal. Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.4. freeway urgency.05).17 shows means. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. externally-focused frustration. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility. it was not correlated with injury occurrence.
247** .340** .513** .15: Means.96 19.376** .88 7.04 26.027 1 .280** .147* -.442 1 -.218** .306** .57 4.152** .08 2.566** 1 -.482** .52 34.147* .471** .901** .749** .202** .246** .342** -.376** .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .209** 1 .036 .435** .211** .716** .69 24.434** .97 43.391** -.191** .804** .58 .388** .64 7.186** .01 level (2-tailed) 127 .76 3.553** -.155** .278** .942** 1 .476 .00 165.D.201** .662** 1 .533** .239** .23 2.405** .5 5.129* .625** .345** 1 -.371** .44 4.231** .22 3.316** . 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.562** -.Table 4.3455 .818** 1 .2691 6.339** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .381** .516** 1 -.416** 1 .78 .544** -.396** .45 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.
855** .448** .159 -.518** .286* .444** .505** .341** .60 10 16.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.400** .225** .275** .028 .521** .148* . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.D.411** .298** .461** .278** 1 -.213** .816** .337** .438** 1 .028 -.688**.254** .173* .762** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .520** .279** .140* .103 -.462** .268** .347** 1 -.312** 1 -.50 5.491** .9 13 46.84 7.331** .66 3.481** .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 .496** .84 5.213** .089 -.509** .55 9 21.463** .542** .272** .147** .276** .178** .43 12.586** .82 7 13.414** .162** .45 5 87.355** .254** .408** .14 4.378** .16: Means.172** .516** .584** -.355** .669** 1 -. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.445** .430** .555** .271** .369** .847** .172** .97 4 4.491** .338** .514** .452** .731** .319** .334** .393** .763** .440**.335** .531** .85 9.5695 .540** .06 3 2.376** .013 1 .697** 1 .382** 1 -.343** .213** .254** .523** .195** .353** .921** .051 .4624 1 -.324** .200** .372** .380** .103 -.342** .167** .22 4.358** .236** .964** 1 .418** .153** .150** .41 3.434** .Table 4.00 14 19.366** .071 .099 .9 12 71.515** .380** .53 19.48 5.9 28.91 15 27.363** .25 8 18.69 8.039 .48 3.443** .403** .407** 1 -.489**.56 2 4.3079 .386** .842** 1 .003 .4960 17 .550** .779** 1 -.816** .157** .067 -.602** 1 .5 6 17.355** .310** .86 6.240** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .343** .294** 1 .331** .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .176* .587** 1 -.401** .
456** .423** .343** .402** .338** .212** .356** .137* .191** .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 .324** .402** .862** .268**.38 5.518** .227** .67 7.219** .230** .241** .367** .745** 1 7 13.323** .246** .275** .18 -.230** .314** .454** .531** 1 10 16.210** .17 -.58 9.484** .465** .304** .89 5.348** 1 6 16.296** .229** .428** .7 -.70 3.278** .81 -.373** .221** .259** .749** .588** 1 14 20.508** .069 .296** .Table 4.506** .03 5.192** .193**.057 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .264** .095 .258** .185** .395** 1 11 65.141* .615** .81 5.895** 1 13 26.203** .228** .033 .387** .422 -.281** .196** .70 1 2 4.424** 1 12 18.130** .378** .183** .202** .80 17.235** .038 .340** .101**.178** .245** .174** .305** .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.189** .345** .526** .641** 1 4 4.016 .804** .224**.370** .151* .366** .7 28.476** .189** .270** .199**.306** .082 .298** .31 3.271** .36 -.166** .199** .075 .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .377** .357** .D.17: Means.49 6.254** .076 .095 .191** 1 3 .735** .9 -.8 -.434** .354** 1 5 88.364** .9 -.162**. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.78 8.01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .355** .288** .501 .11 12.166** .263** .110 .281** .235** .131* .320** .856** 1 17 43.313** .252** .747** .270** .00 -.725** .292** .222** .109 .210**.292** .304** .-181** .277**.64 -.202** .120 .081 .404** .150* .31 -.530** .241** .251** .481** .183** .446** .534** 1 18 19.401** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.17 -.109 .516 .483** .91 -.392** .254** .106 .250** .52 7.413** .221** .592** .167** .368** .286** .42 3.70 8.148** .343** .261** .259** .448** .209** .98 4.349** 1 16 67.293** .265** 1 19 25.150* .412** .103** .192**.139** .545** .69 -.291** .277** 1 8 19.379** .306** .230 .307**.224** .181** .383** .226** .451** .502** .342** .302** .390** .151* .216** .310** .278** .364**.158** .308** .186** .228** .385** .838** .277** .051 .05 -.37 6.218** .86 -.03 -.85 19.97 -.275** .183** .422** 1 9 22.565** .003 .294** .296** .119* 1 21 .311** .
130 . The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. all BIT subscales. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 1B and 1C.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant. and destination-activity orientation. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. Similar to observed results in study 1A. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. freeway urgency. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence.18 shows means. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. However. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. 4.5.
259** .183* 1 .630** .269** .035 3.428** .150 -.485 11.043 .291** .917 3.880 .D. 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.621 3.323 23.201* .122 7.349** .232** .374** .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .614** .317** .028 1 .314** .6803 .383** .219** .14 27.580** 1 .182* -.535** 1 .48 5.50 73.941** 1 .18: Means.06 20.55 175.371** -.025 -.313** 1 .233** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.226** .413** 1 .111 -.290** .758** 1 .418** .376** .413** .072 .325** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .5738 8.264** .240** .409** .165 .500** .562** 1 .367** .4683 .251** .750** .179 7.212* .415** .167 .76 48.334** .66 5.876** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .Table 4.200* -.30 .66 1.192* -.356** .081 8.4966 1 .139 .
BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. In general. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. As indicated in Table 4. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. In this study. but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1C and 2. proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2.4. 132 . 1B.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. correlations between I and distal.19. Differing from Studies 1A. However. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. standard deviations and relationships between distal.5. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19 shows means. significant negative correlations were observed between the internality (I) variable and with physical aggression (PHY) subscale scores on the AQ and with BIT total scores.
373** .235** .74 15.32 7.109 -.236** .324** .060 -.521** .576** .071 .872** .193* -.643** .01 level (2-tailed) 133 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .4 5.807** .07 8.06 2.180** .816** .114 .156 .08 15.05 3.17 20.246** .618** 1 .213** .177 1 .19: Means.864** 1 .240** .067 .588** 1 .218* .35 11.11 15.112 -.275** .072 .197* .54 11.418** .028 .749** .45 19.622** .128 .646** .153** 1 .141 .378** 1 .604** .528** 1 .172** .82 11.404 .12 4.99 10.240** .194* .443** 1 .061 .025 -.D.091 -.225** .150** .245** .213** .117 .030 .039 .271** .43 8.10 1.070 -.229** .182* -.853** .338** 1 .292** .161 -.103 .054 .289** 1 .171 .020 .121 .235** .018 -.072 -.178** .116 .454** .151 -.120 .032 1 .88 1 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .15 32.121 .200* .166 .561** 1 .204* . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.149 .117 .32 3.13 3.167** .013 .254** -.263** .255** .31 8.401** -.721** .060 .2000 .286* 1 .51 3.234** .092** . Distal Variable 1 Internality (I) 2 Externality-Chance (C) 3 Externality –Powerful-Others (P) 4 Total Aggression (AQ) 5 Physical Aggression (PHY) 6 Verbal Aggression (VER) 7 Anger (ANG) 8 Hostility (HOS) 9 Indirect Aggression (IND) Proximal Variables 10 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 11 Usurpation of right-of-way 12 Freeway Urgency 13 Externally-Focused Frustration 14 Destination-activity Orientation Outcome Variables 15 Crash Occurrence 16 Injury Occurrence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12.636** .82 5.261** .048 .268** .023 .65 75.023 -.194* 1 .3 6.658** .152 .371** .84 2.091 .040 .106 .149 .276** .095 .117 .148* .173* .42 66.Table 4.165 .156 .0301 .222* .257** .147** .
freeway urgency. H1.180.01.315. 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=.090.01 B=. p<.034.102. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3. p<.080.01 B=. p<. 4. p<.6.01 B=. p<. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.01 B=.278.01 B=. p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=. p<. p<. For the destination-activity factor.1 through H1.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.4. p<.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=.01 and Study 3: B=.125.172.01 B=. p<.1.1).117.01 Study 1C B=.01 Study 1B B=.1. Table 184.108.40.206.01 B=.048.01 B=.01 B=. Study 2: B=. p<. p<. p<. but not destination-activity orientation.063. p<.063. These results supported H1. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence. These results supported H1.01 134 . p<.01.041.135.095.4 was not supported. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.01 B=. p<.1.146. p<.01 B=.01).095.088 p<.04. and externally-focused frustration. p<.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<. p<.1. p<.01.01 B=. Study 1C: B=.20). p<.3 inclusive.238.01 B=. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. Study 1B: B=. p<.
p<.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.01 Study 1C B=. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence. Table 4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.019.01 and Study 2: B=. p<. p<.23 and Table 4. p<.01 B=. p<.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic ANOVA indicated that driver experience and travel frequency had a statistically significant effect on total BIT scores of automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A. p<.158. 135 .035. p<.140.074.2.087.165. p<.01. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.033 p<.01). 1B and 1C (see Table 4.091.069. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested. p<. respectively). freeway urgency. Study 1B: B=. p<. p<.24.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.035.118.054. Table 4. p<.21).01 B=. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=.05 Study 1B B=. p<.01 B=.01 B=.064.038.095. p<.6. Study 1C: B=.075 p<.21: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=.059. 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=.120. p<.01 B=. p<. p<.01 B=. These results supported H1.01 B=.01 B=.22.01.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.
52 25.184** 136 .600** Table 4.98 33.25 5.29 21.64 27.32 28.77 165.32 147.43 20.01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.01.35 33.44 178.48 171.35 4.98 171.68 26. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.25 25.35 155.23: 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<.31 161.89 21.15 161.Table 4.77 8.82 33.41 167.16 3.73 170.60 185.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.92 157.82 168.50 28.05. * p<.06 19.30 22.22: 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<.03 25.35 24.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.64 26.88 28.56 175.
39 19.00 14. On the other hand.05).73 157.81 167. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159.14 15. and those who almost never travelled (p<.01).77 16. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.Table 4. * p<.52 3. about once every two weeks (p<.00 16.05).01. In Study 1C.12 154. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4. Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.05. Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.53 17.06 160.25).01). 137 . Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. In Study 1B.06 8. post hoc analyses indicated that drivers with 3 years or less of licensed driving experience had significantly lower total BIT scores when compared with drivers that had 3 years experience but less than 5 years of licensed driving experience (p<.12 161.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.88 167.01 14.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170.05).01).24: The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) Variable Driver Experience 3 years or less 3 to 5 years 5 to 7 years More than 7 years Driving Frequency Everyday Several times a week About once or twice a week About once every two weeks Almost never Note: ** p<.060** In Study 1A.01). 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<.01).29 15.73 24.61 165. In Study 2.
26).50 184.58 188.81 22.05. Table 4.55 10.50 24.81 175.316 1. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers. 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. * p<.05.80 22.437 (N.74 77.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.31 78.31 2.65 73. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.56 3.S.68 20.Table 4.64 24.37 9. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.60 72.33 78.94 20.528** In Study 3. However.97 8.47 5.25: 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<. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.01.S. N.52 172.82 162.753* 38 48 27 20 77.859 11.26: 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<. * p<.55 73. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .S) Therefore.63 1.81 161.71 168.89 20.27 14.381 10. In other words. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174. However.01.26 10.920 (N. N.09 15.62 10. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.
been predicted by H2. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A.1 was confirmed. though. In Study 3. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. 1B. 1B. however. In Study 2. the lower was the total BIT score.1 and H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores.2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. In Studies 1A.2. For ethnicity. Contrary to the subhypothesis. ethnicity and age – were investigated.6. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic The direct effects on total BIT scores of three demographic variables – gender. ANOVA results for age. 139 . only H2.27). Again. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. In this case. 4. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. 1C and 2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. only H2. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver experience had no statistically significant effect. the longer the taxicab operator had been driving.
66.05 F=4. t(250) = 2.01 F=1. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.01 F=2.1 and H3. H3.05).S. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3. In Study 3.S.01 F=1. Therefore. p<. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers.01 F=9.12.S.00. N.62. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.01 F=. H3. In Study 1C.S.2 was confirmed.01 F=8.99. In Study 1A and Study 2.6. 1C and Study 2.05.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated.05 F=11. Study 1B t=2. p<. N.05. p<. p<. N. it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. however.562.44.81. In Study 1B.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. p<.98. p<. Externality-Chance (C). Study 2 t=3. p<.74. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).68. p<. Study 1C t=3. In Study 1B. 4. male 140 .2 were confirmed.9. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.56.Table 4.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.01). post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.05). p<. N. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P). In all studies. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.01 F=19. N.3 was not supported. p<.53.
F(2. 298) = 3.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers. t(120) = 2. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05).05). F(2.527.476.941. In Study 1A.05 respectively.05.462.05. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control.01 respectively). p<. F(2. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. 141 .01). F(2.041.370. p<. 298) = 3. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.05 and F(2.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<. p<. For Studies 1A. 119) = 5. F(2.05 and F(2. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. p<. 299) = 5. In Study 2.01. p<.01 respectively.01).566. 299) = 3. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I.503. t(299) = 2. p<. 1C. p<.05 and p<.490. E and P scores.05 respectively. 249) = 3. Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. p<. 298) = 6. 1B. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. In Study 1B. In Study 1C.
H4.2 and H4. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. In Study 1. Therefore. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers.2. H4. in Study 2.3. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A.2.1 and H5. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.1.3 were supported. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. However. 4. H5. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers.3 were not supported. it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. H4. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.2.6. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. 1B or 1C.Therefore. so H4.079.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. that age influences hopelessness. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality.3. H5. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers.05. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A.01). that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness. 142 .3.1.1. p<. were supported.3. t(120) = 2.3 was supported.2 and H4. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.2. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. H4. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. In addition.
01.2 and H6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. were supported.3. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.254.01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .342.01.01 and B = .01 respectively).3. In Study 1B. p<.01 and B = . were supported. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness.01 and (B = . respectively).371. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2.306. p<. 4.4. 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. H6.01 and B = .6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.254. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .6.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .312.01. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. p<.1.186. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. In Study 1C. p<. p<. that internality would influence hopelessness. was not supported. respectively). p<. p<. H6.1. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness. p<. H6.354.341. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -. p<.28).239. Therefore. respectively). H6. In Study 2.2 and H6.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A. 143 .290. p<.
p<.415. freeway urgency (B =.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores.151. In Study 2. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .05) and destination-activity orientation (B = . the higher the hopelessness scores.05) but not for freeway urgency. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . with both automobile and motorcycle drivers.05 B=. p<.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = .317. p<. p<.01). p<. p<. p<.05 Study 2 B=. p<.157.1.288. freeway urgency (B = . p<.280.01 B=.01).S. p<. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way.01 B=.05 Study 1C B=.349.2. the higher the hopelessness scores.01). p<.05). meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study.01). In Study 1B. N.191. p<.05 B=. p<.01 B=.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.01). In Study 1C.01 Study 1B B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .01 B=.01 B=. p<. was supported in Studies 1A.01 B=.254.3 and H7.418.151. p<. p<. 144 . p<.232.275. p<.05 In Study 1A. p<.01). 1C and 2. p<.141.247. Therefore. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.287.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = . p<.2220.127.116.11.01 B=.01 B=. p<. H7. p<.349.415. B=.151.05). p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . H7.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = . that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores.191.05). it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=.278.157.254. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B.099. p<.317. freeway urgency (B = .141.01 B=.4.01). H7.01 B=.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .151.280.275.Table 4.232. p<.247.
Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.3.006. p<.01 B=. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1. N.2. B=.753. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3.229.01 B=. Table 4. p<. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.044.S. p<. provided support for hypothesis H8. p<. p<.1.388. p<.01 B=-. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4. p<.339.8 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.077.1 and H8.01 B=.01 B=.01 B=-.6.S. motorcycle and taxicab drivers). With regard to H8. but not H8.01 B=-. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.2 and H8.1. 145 . the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. Therefore. H8.1.01 B=.239. where only H8.01 B=.01 B=-. p<. H8.4. H8. p<. With regard to H8.01 B=.178.29). results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C. N. p<.625.297.2. N. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores.336.168. that the higher the subscale score for I.S.315.05 B=. B=.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores. p<.208.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-.3. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.
Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality. In Study 1C. p<.01 (see Figure 4. p<. F=4. 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. =8.710.05. p<. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<. 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.1). p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. 146 .01 and F=8.1).909. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. F=4. it was found that Malay automobile drivers with high externalitychance scores had significantly higher BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of way than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with low externality-chance scores.01 respectively (see Figure 4. F=7.272.01 (see Figure 4.704. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. Further.2).581.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C.
Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.3).9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A. 1B and 1C.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74. R2=.6.282. First. 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 62.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 66.444. p<.05.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4.033. This means that motorcycle drivers with high internality scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high internality scores but low hopelessness scores (see Figure 4. hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.05. However.2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. 147 .00 64.00 68. multiple regression showed mixed results.034. B = .327. in Study 2. F=4. Kurtosis=-.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. p<.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=. R2=. F=18. Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.01.463.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 .070.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4. p<.167. B = . p<.4).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=.01. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. Kurtosis=-.608.459.371).
01 (see table 4. N. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores.677.05 Study 1C t=2.298. p<. However. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested. F(2. p<.30). p<.05 t=4.780.01 t=2. 4.820.603.30: Direct Effects of Gender on AQ Total and Subscale Scores Total Aggression (AQ) score Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Study 1B t=2.6. t(300) = 2. N. p<. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores.S t=2.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. N. Table 4. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers.480.690. p<. t= . With motorcycle drivers. results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender.Therefore. 1C and 3.521. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4. p<.01 t=2.S t=2. 249) = 5.1.467. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. p<.690.01 t=4. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 .210. N.S.01.01 t=-. In Study 1C. however. were supported.05 t=.S t=1.603. p<.2. In Study 1B and Study 3. p<.31).187.05 respectively. the H9. p<. and t(250) = 2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. and H9.164. In both studies. p<.032. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.
Mean total AQ scores and mean scores on the five AQ subscales did not differ significantly between age groups either for automobile drivers in Studies 1B and 1C or for taxicab drivers in Study 3.01).S.526.041. F=. p<.01 Study 3 F=1. p<. 299) = 4. F=1.57.629. F=1.398. 299) = 5.01 F=2. Similar to the findings in Study 1B. N. N. N.182.077.01.01). F=2.S. 150 . p<.05 Study 1C F=5. F=1. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay.804. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F=2.763. p<.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.561. F=1. p<. N.S. N.432. N.432. Table 4.S. N.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.01). N.422.05. N.S. p<. N.S.021.S.041. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. In Study 1C. mixed results were found. 249) = 10.01. F=1.521.567. In Study 1B. N.904. F=2. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. mean IND scores of Malay.01). ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. F=5.155.564.S.S. N. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<.632. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.S. N.S F=10. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. F(2.01 F=. In Study 3.S. F=2. F(2. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different. F(2. p<.S. F=4.
were all supported.29). This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher.4. were supported.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. externally-focused frustration. however.3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. freeway urgency.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY.4. 151 .3 and H11. H11. respectively. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components.32). Therefore. was supported. The higher the total aggression scores. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3.Therefore. VER and IND subscale scores.3 and H11. However. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. H11. H10.1. only H11.6. 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. 4. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.2. 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. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. H10. In Study 3.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. H11. H10. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. In Studies 1B and 1C. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C. freeway urgency.
it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.121.545.229. p<.01. Similarly. but not in Study 3. the higher were total BIT scores.S. p<. respectively.428.483. Study 1C and Study 3.01 B=. p<.520.05 B=. B = .380. B = . no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.387.540. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01 B=. p<. When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors. However.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.Table 4.01. p<. p<. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers. p<.01 B=.204.01 B=.370. This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND.01.01 and B = . p<. N.263. 1B.324. p<. p<.05 B=.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=. p<.438. and B = . p<.565. p<.S.370.01 B=.491. p<. p<. B = . B = . but not in Study 3.505.263.385. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.01 B=. respectively. Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT.881. Total BIT Score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation The effects of AQ subscale factors on the total BIT score were also tested. B = .01 B=. and B = . p<. Study 1C and Study 3.01 and B = . p<. p<. p<. B=. Also. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.048.01.235. p<. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.216.183. p<. B = .461. p<. 1C.01 B=. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.01 respectively.01 Study 3 B=. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.01. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. F=3.05 (see Figure 4.01 respectively.5). Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01. p<. Study 2 and Study 3. p<. N.
Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Kurtosis=-.362.6. p<. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52.961.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. B=-.271.00 46.01.645.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. Study 1C and Study 3. R2=. Kurtosis=-.00 42.01.929.100.297. F=81. p<. R2=.003. The moderating effect of I was significant.05. p<. respectively.172. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. for Study 1B. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .01.6. p<. and B=-.00 44.516.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.00 IndianMalaysian 48. In other words.076.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.12.131.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4. B=-. F=100.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. p<. R2=. respectively) This means that the relationship between aggression and BIT would be stronger among drivers with low scores on the I subscale than it would be among drivers with high scores on the I subscale.01.316.
p<. R2=.606.109.897. In Study 1B. Kurtosis=-.369.117.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Kurtosis=. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. p<. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .694. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.12.6).01 and B = .431. R2=.01 respectively.271.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. Kurtosis=.015. Kurtosis=-. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. R2=. F=78.757. F=94.015.088.387. R2=.297. p<. respectively). Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.704. p<. F=91.507.069.271. B = .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=. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463.01. p<. R2=. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4.01. respectively).297.360.6.794. p<. F=71.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.
1. and the moderation effect was not significant.01 and B = . This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4.7).332. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. p<. Therefore. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3. H12. and H12.2.302. p<. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C. 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. that the internality.01 respectively. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 . B = . Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However.3.significant. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers.
05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 248) = 3. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. 156 .343. p<. Only H12.885. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.05. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<.279. p<. p<. 4. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3. 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<.1. 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<.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. t(249)=18.104.22.1687. p<.01 but not on about the derogation of others.01). On the subscale measuring statements about revenge. H122 and H12.314. However. There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression. t(250) = 3.05). p<. and about revenge F(2.01. 249) = 5. 249) = 4. with the sample of taxicab drivers.01.05).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. Also. F(2.263. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3.05.
that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts.2. with the sample of automobile drivers studied. Therefore.Therefore. B = . This means that.01 and B = .14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. was not supported. B = .01. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. p<.379.01. p<. 157 . p<. 4. (that thoughts about physical aggression. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores.413.192. respectively.01.01.1 and H13. p<. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. the higher the total HAT scores.364.1.2 and H14. B = . H13. This means that. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.3. p<. were supported. H14. was supported.3.01. H13. freeway urgency. B = . and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. on total BIT score were also tested.01. were supported. B = .01 and destination-activity orientation. p<.224. p<. was partially supported.307. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14.277. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.6. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13. B = . the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts. derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration. H14. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts.394.
8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales.01.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the Aggression-BIT Relationship Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that HAT scores moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.6. F=55. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT. 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. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4. In other words.297.809.565. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.-554. R2=.4.05.188. 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. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . p<.8).072). p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.013.01. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. B = .002. Kurtosis=. R2=.297.911.085). and the moderating effect of HAT was significant. Physical Aggression and Revenge. p<. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. Kurtosis=. F=57.
B = .16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4.3.2. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.207. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. were supported. p<.1 and H15.092).294.01. However. was not supported. H15.246. B = .01. F=59. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant.026. H15. 4. p<. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.475.297.01. R2=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.6. Kurtosis=. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. 159 . p<.33). was supported. Therefore.Aggression was significant.
3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.2.S S S N.S S S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1.S S S S S S N.S P.2.Table 4.S N.S N.S P.S N.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3. S N.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1.2.S 3 P.S N.1.S P.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S P.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.1.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S S S P.S.2.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S P.3.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S S S N.S S S S S N.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.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.S N.S 160 .S S N.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.S N.S S N.S N.S P.S S N.S P.S N.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.2.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.S N.S 1C P.S N.S N.S S N.S N.S N.S S S N.1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S N.S N.1.S N.S S S N.2.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.
S S N.S S S N.S P.S N.S S S N.S N.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S P.S N.S 161 .1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.S N.S 1B N.S N.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.S N.S= Not Supported.S N.S S S N.S 3 N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.S P.S S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N. P.S N.S P.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.S S S S S S S N.S S S S S P.S N.S S N.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H7: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H7.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S P.S N.S P.S 2 N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S N. N.3.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S= Partially Supported.S N.S STUDY 1C N.Table 4.3: 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 S S S S S S S P.3.S N.S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S S S N.S N.S N. blank=Not Applicable N.S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.S N.
S N.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S S N.S S S N.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.S= Not Supported.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.Table 4.S S S S S P.S N.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13. P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S S 2 3 P.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S S S N.S P.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S= Partially Supported.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.S S N.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11. 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.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. N.S 162 .
23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . 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. AQ. F3. F3. HAT I.93 .58 35. C.97 . All proposed models measured: (1) internality. F4 F1.00000 . These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors. This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. C. 163 .34.96 RMSEA . BHS. AQ.00126 . F4 F1. 4. F2. HAT Proximal Factors F1. AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P.00000 . Study 2: motorcycle driver. Hopelessness.93 .102 .52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. F3. HAT I. F4 χ2 49. freeway urgency.7. F3. AQ.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. Table 4. P I.38 100.97 63. F2.34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I.087 . e.90 110. F3 F1. F2. C. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Hopelessness (BHS). F2. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). P.045 . 2002). BHS.80 104. two were worthy of further examination. F2. C.060 Note: Internality (I).00111 . Aggression (AQ). F2. BHS I.f. C. F4 F1. Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors.4. F3. AQ I.00000 . P. and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome.93 . Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver.96 .068 .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. Externality Powerful-Other (P).02 d. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. freeway urgency (F2). P. F4 F1. Externality Chance (C). (2) usurpation of right-of-way.093 .05522 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors.g. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). C. P.
94. d.92) on accident involvement. which are detailed in sect. For Model C6.26. AGFI=. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.92) on accident involvement.42. RMR=.3. goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. Externality (Powerful-Other). 164 . RMSEA=. . .42.91.060. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores.29 and .96. For Model C5. RMR=.02. For Model C5. CFI=. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. Externality (Chance).26.14.=33. For Model C6.97. GFI=. values for these additional indices were: NFI=. The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores. but not as good as for C5. ECVI=.5. of the BIT score.35.f. GFI=. To aid this discussion. with path coefficients = -.98).32.=24. . values were: NFI=. with path coefficients = -.f. Externality (Chance). and PGFI=.destination-activity orientation (F4). Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points.10). CFI=. C6. . .96. d. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices.97. . An alternate model.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.48. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.28 and . 5. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63.10). Externality (Powerful-Other).043.97. AGFI=. RMSEA=. ECVI=.13.22 respectively (see Figure 4.043.51 and PGFI=.045.23 respectively (see Figure 4. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.
32* Externality (Chance) .51* .79* .26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.045 RMR=.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .92* Accident Involvement .29* Aggression (AQ) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.99 P-value = . *p<. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.57* Injury Occurrence .63* .005522 N=252 RMSEA=. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 .f =24 CFI=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.58* .97 d.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35.97 GFI=.
56* .63* . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.060 RMR=.31* Externality (Chance) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.92* Accident Involvement .96 d.00126 N=252 RMSEA=.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.77* .50* .98 P-value = . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 . *p<.58* Injury Occurrence .22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.02 GFI=.f =33 CFI=.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .29* Aggression (AQ) .39* .
92 . VER. Verbal aggression (VER). F3. HOS. 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). using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. F2. IND. HOS. HAT-D.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). path coefficients = .In addition.91 .66 153.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY).00000 .=61.65 and . ANG. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1. F3 F1. F3. IND. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. F2.081 .80) on the accident involvement. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value .66 131. HAT-D. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P).41.41 d. GFI=.00000 . ANG. ANG.91 . d.73 169. RMSEA=. F4 F1.94 169. IND PHY. VER. ANG.00000 GFI RMSEA .91. Aggression (AQ).084 . HAT-R PHY.93 . F3 F1. F3.00111 .95). HAT-P. HOS. ANG.66). Hostility (HOS). F4 F1. HAT-P. HAT-P. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. HOS.f. F2. F2.f. HAT-R PHY. CFI=. Angry (ANG). the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. HAT-R PHY. Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R).91 . IND.13 respectively.080 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.084 . HAT-D. Indirect aggression (IND).078. freeway urgency (F2).00000 . HAT-P. HAT-D. 167 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. HOS. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors.35). Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). IND. F4 χ2 108. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4.10. VER.
29* Hostility . *p<.69* Anger .41 GFI=.61* .65* .11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .95 P-value = .83* .68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .078 RMR=.80* Accident Involvement . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.05 .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.72* .63* Indirect Aggression .90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .58* .058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .62* .91 d.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression .f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.66* . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.
p-value GFI RMSEA I. C.36).36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. C.66) on the accident involvement. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.33 33. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. Hopelessness (BHS). freeway urgency (F2). C.95 . The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.12. path coefficients = -.07580 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). BHS F1.f.98).12). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant.80 respectively (see Figure 4. BHS I. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther).058 . F3. d.86 23 28 23 . RMSEA=.4. P.65 and .047.94 . CFI=.94.06722 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT.12 d. F4 39. the participants were motorcycle drivers. 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. F2. 169 .17631 . F3.047 . Externality Chance (C). F4 F1.2 Study 2 In Study 2.94 . P I. F2. Externality Powerful-Other (P). P.f.7.062 Note: Internality (I). GFI=. F3 F1. F2. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.=28.
83* BIT3 .046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients. *p<.05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.70* BIT4 .57* Internality -. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.95 d.047 RMR=.12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .f =23 CFI=.12 GFI=.99 P-value = . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.65* Externality (Chance) .78* .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .88* Crash Occurrence .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BIT2=Freeway Urgency.17631 N=122 RMSEA=.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) .89* .
95).95 . AQ F1. P. F4 50.82 28 . P Proximal Factors F1.20 and . F4 Outcomes χ2 d.027 I.39. freeway urgency (F2). I. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). CFI=. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I. C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control.061 Note: Internality (I). have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). but not Externality. F2.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.03084 . RMSEA=. the participants were taxi drivers. 37. P.=21. AQ F1. GFI=.079 Injury Occurrence I.13). F3. C. AQ F1.f. F2.97 .061.40) on the accident involvement.22 23 . F4 Crash Occurrence 18. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. F3.95. C.39 21 . F3. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F2.f.93 . F2. d.35265 . F3.4.59 17 .00524 .7.37). C. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence. Internality and AQ. path coefficients = -. The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT.94 . Externality Chance (ExC). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.20 respectively (see Figure 4. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.3 Study 3 In Study 3. Hopelessness (H). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4.06743 . 171 .
f =21 CFI=. BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.061 RMR=.39 GFI=.39* Internality -. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.20* Externality (Chance) .61* BIT4 .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 P-value = . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.63* BIT3 .74* -.95 d. *p<.13 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .
8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4. 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement.4. Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. consistent with path analysis results. and.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement. 4. 173 .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. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1. Therefore. Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 2 and 3 are satisfied.38).39). 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. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.8. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. Table 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986).8.38: 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.
Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A.40).8. where the 174 .41).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. in Studies 1A. 1B and 1C. Table 4.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence. Table 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I).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 4.8.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.
C or P and the two crash outcomes. For taxicab drivers in Study 3. Table 4. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates I-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates I-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates C-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Partial Mediator Complete Mediator Not Applicable 175 .mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied.
Study 1A vs.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. p <. Study 1A vs.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).05. Study 1B vs. Study 1B vs.442.9. p <.663. p <. 176 .01. p <. Study 2: t(422)= 8.993. Study 2: t(421)= 7. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -3.162.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -3. Study 1A vs. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Study 1C vs. p <.01. p <.665.01. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1C vs.Table 4.01. Study 2: t(421)= -4. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control.426. Study 2: t(372)= 8. 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 2.837. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.
Study 2: t(421)= -3.186. p <.01. and to injury occurrence. p <. 4. p <.211. Study 1B vs.01.775. Study 1C vs.9. p <.577. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(422)= -6. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. p <.704.01.01.926. t(986)= 37.01. Study 1A vs. t(986)= 30.01. Study 1A vs. Study 2: t(422)= -4.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension. Study 2: t(372)= -7.01.977. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.402. respectively.01.801. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. “freeway urgency”.01. p <.837. Also.9. Study 2: t(421)= -7.861.01.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score. t(986)= 6.747. p <. p <.261. Study 2: t(372)= -6. Study 1C vs. t(986)= 5. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension.484. p <. t(986)= 7. p <. p <. t(986)= 3. Study 2: t(421)= -8.687. Study 1C vs.200. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. p <. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.614. and t(986)= 35.01. Study 1B vs. t(986)= 34.433.01. t(253) = 2. 177 .01. 4. p <. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores. t(253)= 8. p <. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control.01.01. p <.01.01.01. Study 2: t(372)= -5. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.
01.567.01and to injury occurrence.01. t(253)= 11. 178 . p <. p <.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers.01.016.737. p <. t(253)= 8. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”. Also. t(253)= 35. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence. respectively. t(253)= 8. “freeway urgency”. p <.01.881. and t(253)= 37.982. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”.01. p <. t(253)= 31. p <.946.977.01. t(253)= 39. p <.
exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway. including gender. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . upon examination.1). 2002b). In an earlier study. (1993). Evans.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. Elander et al.CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects.2. not directly on driving behaviour and crash outcomes but rather on some intervening variable located more proximally to the event (see sect. age and personality may be the most important factors in crash causation (Bridger. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. freeway urgency. multi-factorial perspective.. Often. 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. al. Elander et. 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. 2. 1993. 1991). While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 1995. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP).4. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation. They found gender.
A rich variety of individual factors exists which. As a result. and did so in all cases but hopelessness. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. 1991). significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. But findings were more complex than that. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. Further.total BIT score and component scores. In the contextual mediated model. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. though. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. hopelessness. the proximal variable. except with taxicab drivers. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. 180 . is that factors interact with each other. In other words. BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control. In the present research. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. if different. BIT. All too often. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering.
… 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. 22.214.171.124). 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
SD=22. In the present study.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. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . respectively). Because of occupational demands. SD=.6 months as licensed drivers. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network. By virtue of their age and occupation. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups. SD=1. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic.1 months. as well.01years. For taxicab drivers. SD=11. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. Of course.3. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.63. there are other possible influences.hierarchy. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.7 months. They were also more experienced (266. 20. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks.53.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.1. Inclán.5.2 years. For taxicab drivers. and 36. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers. respectively).25 years. 5. SD=131.16. SD=1. 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.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour.
perhaps due as argued earlier. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. Carment (1974) also found. financial matters and social affiliations are made. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. He attributed this to the socio-political environment of the time. in which members look to each other and especially to maternal figures within the home. in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. Devashayam. The finding that Indian- 188 . findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. rife with bureaucracy. 2005). when compared to Canadian students. or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. corrupt practices.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). Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. In an environment where career choice. influence peddling and status-related privileges. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. were necessary to succeed. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. 2003. spousal selection. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. however. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. along with selfpromotion skills. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop.
Sendut. and. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede. 1998. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). Salih &Young. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55. including locus of control.3. where Cheung et al. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. but two possible influences stand out. an internal locus of control. 2002. Indeed.8 million in 1996.5 million in 1991 to 11. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 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. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. 1999. as a result. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4.5% annually from 9. 1981). as a group. 1999.7 in 1996. 1966. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. Nandy.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers The present research found no significant difference between Malay and Chinese participants in any of the three dimensions of locus of control. It is also consistent with the results of a study by Fontaine and Richardson (2003) which found differences in cultural values within the workplace were not significant among the three Malaysian ethnic groups. by extension. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. Gomez. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 5. 1999). Again.
Nonetheless. Huff. 5. 318). Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. more recently. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Consistently. 2000. 2001. 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. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. King & Parker. Lawton & Nutter. aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. with the resulting “emergence of ‘ethnic citizens’ who have been encouraged to participate in the Malaysian nation uncritically through the virtual worship of development symbols and unquestioning deference to political leadership” and national value systems (p. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. Oetting & Salvatore. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Miles & Johnson. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Miller & Rodgers. by the enraged driver. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. 2002. Dukes. Jenkins. 2002). 2001) In the present research. Parkinson. Lynch. bringing them closer together in outlook.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. 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. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . feeling more frustrated at external sources. 2008. 2003.women’s friendship patterns. Clayton.
physical aggression. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. Petrilli et al. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Parker. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. 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”). during such incidents. a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 . Finland and the Netherlands. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Oetting et al. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. on a journey by journey basis. Underwood et al. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident.conditions. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. (1996) and Deffenbacher. With taxicab drivers. Their findings were replicated in the present research where it was shown that the higher the total frequency of hostile automatic thoughts reported by drivers. Further. Deffenbacher. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression.
would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. the world and others)... 2006). when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment). 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 . one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. as well. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. however. perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. In essence. The effects of aggression on behaviour. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. Such responses.strongly. but not when they involved the derogation of others. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. 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. That is. although still significantly. in the samples studied here. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. 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. 1997).
193 . and particularly with negative emotion. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts. Similarly. p. like any other mental task. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. Certainly. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. 401). 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. Hochschild.e. Novaco. 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.. 2004. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. 1995. true to operant learning principles.e. language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. or self-talk. but there may be more to it than that. 1994. this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Generally. 1979. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. It is moderated by cognitive processes. 1990. “in ergonomics.are determined by chance or fate. 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. 1987. Meichenbaum. Language loaded with emotional content. (2003). 1977). receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”).. Finally. Downe & Loke. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex.
MartinLoeches. 1993). Mercado & Tapia.g. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. 2005). 5. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 162). Lambie & Marcel. In fact. Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. Performance (e. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. Stein. Martin. Trabasso & Liwag. 1997). As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Watson & Wan. 2002. 1996. as well as other task demands of driving in traffic. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs..Robbins. Tomkins. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. Taylor & Fragopanagos. hostile automatic thoughts. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort. Dien. and attempting to exercise control over.5. 1999. Making sense of. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. Hinojosa. 2002.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. Carretie. p. aggressive emotionality. 2000. 2004.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . 2000.
The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. Karl Jöreskog. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. Second. a multivariate technique. 2004.multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. or latent. SEM appears to be the only technique capable of examining a set of relationships simultaneously when the phenomena of interest are complex and multidimensional (Hardy and Bryman. 195 . the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. explain criterion. 2004. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer. In addition. 2006). involved in the analysis. 1998).. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis.. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. 2000). or independent variables. Gavin and Hartman (2004). factors represented by multiple variables. Hair et al.. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. By estimating and removing measurement error. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. EQS and AMOS. According to Williams. p. 2006).434). variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. Finally. or dependent. Structural equation modelling (SEM). When composing a model. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. First. and perhaps most important. who in 1970. including dependent and independent variables. 2006).
2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. and the root mean square residual were included. Shook et al. 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. In the present research.5.e. etc) 196 . etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. SRMR. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature. Therefore. CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Hair et al. Sümer (2003) added that. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. (2004) has been critical of most studies. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. (2006). 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. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. (2004) noted that. CFI. Ketchen. as suggested by Hair et al. when assessing the fits of measurement models. TLI. Williams et al. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. GFI. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. the comparative fit index (CFI). but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices.5.e. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. the goodness of fit index (GFI). Shook.
GFI. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies. Structural equation modelling should. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al.g. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models.5.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit.In the present research. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan. so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. CFI and CFI) greater than . Md-Sidin. Maruyama.90. 2001. It is argued here that. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne. At the same time. we would argue.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Hair et al. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit.. Fit index values (e. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 2006. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2006). 2000). 1998). Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. 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. 2001. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. significant p-values can be expected. RMSEA lower than . CFI. 5. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio. As a general rule. 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. Sambasivan & Ismail. 1998..
9) included all four components of the BIT scale. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. 88). it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. In some cases.10) excluded the fourth factor. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. More importantly. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.3). stating that. statistical. “Scientific progress could be impeded if fit coefficients (even appropriate ones) are used as the primary criterion for judging the adequacy of the model” (p. There is some support for this position in the literature. 158).1. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. In the case at hand. destination-activity orientation. as suggested by Byrne (2001). 1C5 and 1C6. while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. 4. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5. two structural equation models. However. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. and practical considerations (p. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters.soundness. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 . Thus. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”.7.
BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. AQ. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63.94 0.97 0.97 1. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. P.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.909 0.98 0.48 30. C.42 11. 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.96 0.91 0.96 1. 199 .99 0. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.499 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0. F2. C.02 0.043 129. F2.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I. BITF2=Freeway Urgency. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. P.97 0.02 0. F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Injury Occurrence 35.02 0. AQ. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.060 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.034 97.Table 5.045 0.
Schwebel. goodness-of-fit. Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives.. Parker. Manstead & Stradling. Kayumov. Based on the practical advantages of including the destination-activity orientation variable within the contextual mediated model and findings of the subsequent comparative results of PGFI coefficients. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower.1). 2006). Hair et al. Storey. they should be dropped. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. but still acceptable. it is 0. 1996). while for Model 1C6. farther along. 200 .48. By selecting Model 1C5.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. For practical reasons.42. 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. based on the notion that each variable included may. in this analysis. 2006. et al. the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical. Nahn & Shapiro. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. Reason. However. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. in particular. 1995. 1990. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible.
externality-powerful other. externality-powerful other.14. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes.5. externally-focused frustration. Rothengatter. As observed from the investigation of structural paths.66). . Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = . 1991. This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 . with five distal factors (internality. and hostile automatic thoughts). The results suggested that the alternative model.21).29). In Study 1C. . They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -.35 and .28 and . aggression. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e.34) and injury occurrence (r = .4.18) and injury occurrence (r = -. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. 2001.6.1). internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = . 2003). crash occurrence (r = -.26.28 respectively).g.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = . 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.35. . Evans. for automobile drivers sampled. via BIT. externality-chance. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.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. Sümer.5. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. on crash outcomes. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes.45).5. externalitychance. freeway urgency.
on the other hand. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. externality-powerful other and hopelessness). externality-chance.23) and injury occurrence (r = . Results indicated that the first alternative model.4.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors.41).2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. which sampled motorcyclists. had a better fit than other alternative models.65 and . internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. 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. freeway urgency.66) directly predicted crash outcomes.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. externally-focused frustration.20) and injury occurrence (r = . and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.25). freeway urgency. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . 202 . crash occurrence (r = . externally-focused frustration. 5. crash occurrence (r = . the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.55).24).5. Aggression.
the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. externality-chance.3). 4. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. for the sample of taxicab drivers. Results indicated that the third alternative model. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.5. had no significant effect on BIT scores. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. hopelessness. in turn and indirectly. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. aggression). via BIT. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. to measure outcome.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. externality-powerful other and aggression). their crash occurrence. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. with the sample of taxicab drivers. For motorcyclists. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes.5. crash occurrence. freeway urgency. 5. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. However. Distal factors. externality-powerful other. such as internality. with four distal factors (internality. externally-focused frustration. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -. had a better fit than alternative models. Finally. freeway urgency. as a result. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. for crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration.4.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results.20 and . crash occurrence.5. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct.6. externality-chance. 203 .
Sekaran (2003) points out. however. 2004). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. 278279). 204 . In the present research. The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group. Further. chosen at random from taxi stands. a total of five samples were taken. To a large extent.6 5. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. Huguenin. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. 2005). 2005. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses.5. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers.6.1 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.
2% and Study 2: 99. in Malaysia. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16.6% (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. Study 1C: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99.55). Table 5. Sabah.In Malaysia.13 years (SD = 1. young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. with a mean age of 20. 205 .31. these data may provide an indication of the extent to which the samples studied here are representative of the fourteen states and districts of Malaysia. contributed the largest proportion of the sample.6%. The most populous state.2). Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia.2%). Since. Study 1B: 100%. as elsewhere. Selangor. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample.
887. 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.260. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.0 8.807 733.0 12. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.000 Per cent of national population 26.000 2.000 1.8 6.2 7.387.818.396.2 3.9 (3) 2.000 1.000 2.2 (1) 3. in this case.004.100.7 (14) But.674 1. Not all states have the same number of drivers.3 (12) 11.300.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.1 (7) 8.576 2.5 (4) 4.9 9.2 11. In both cases. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.286 1.2: 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. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.880 3.5 (8) 3.6 (10) 7.9 (9) 7.4 5.000 3.6 0.2 (5) 0. For that reason.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.2 (11) 12.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.6 5.8 (6) 6.6 6. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed. 206 .0 4.200.503. Table 5.Table 5.7 (2) 2.188 1.500.2 (13) 11.000 215.6 2.150. Table 5.500 1.
029 273.37 3.606 24.88 3.496 187.003 10.735 165.588.230 266.144 12.137 698.90 5.92 25.70 12.45 9.46 8.24 2.16 2.63 207 .68 7.104 6.467 25.093 5.428.Table 5.28 3.91 2.88 2.93 0.19 4.13 6.163 10.24 0.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.026 10.05 2.98 0.35 4.22 17.55 7.36 8.93 9.785 393.490 525.50 29.617 10.041 92.75 4.768 6.20 12.34 3.198 156.170 13.920 181.89 3.064 9.4 4.70 3.251 324.600 135.19 7.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.96 3.19 3.212 39.27 14.725 70.84 11.34 11.76 3.97 12.774 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 12.85 1.43 2.635 1.561 1.
92 25.992 776.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.026 10.33 4.59 12.144 12.283 770.989 6.722 255.27 14.656 821.38 4.88 3.02 7.93 9.63 11.79 13.36 8.49 12.66 11.606 24.288 444.98 0.4 4.Table 5.15 5.03 4.221 36.74 208 .93 7.28 3.003 10.35 4.46 14.59 1.10 9.467 25.88 2.029 273.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.46 5.112 347.133 705.856 310.38 0.20 15.02 10.212 39.561 1.170 13.679 90.37 3.22 3.64 2.958 % 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 12.104 6.615.305 276.725 70.617 10.48 1.63 13.768 6.064 9.82 9.76 3.995 233.64 1.75 5.49 0.43 2.727 161.45 2.14 7.
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. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.824** . was representative of a high risk driver population.Table 5.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. Table 5.4.5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5. 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.903** . it can be argued that they were. participants came from – or. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location.814** 1 . at least. Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . Of course. it is possible to say that sampling. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.3 and 5.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . At least on these dimensions.908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .
Elander et al. Hatakka. Exposure. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. demographic factors. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. 1998. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. unless the variation within the group is very small. however. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. 1998. as in other psychological research. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p.g. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. Much important data is available in official statistics.. e.6. However. the data has to be disaggregated. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure. The problem. violations and accidents should be linked together. 296). The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. Rothengatter. It would be impossible to find an answer to the question “is the elderly group with low mileage at a higher risk than younger drivers with high mileage?” In order to explain the differences between different road-user roups in accient risk. attitudinal factors. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. in studying driving behaviour. 5. accident distributions by age. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population.characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons. 1979). 2001). accidents. Again.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). Keskinen.
combined interview and observational methods. Yet.g. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy.. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. muscle tension. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. Particularly. The assumption.6. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. 211 . Visser and Denis (2004). 5.g.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. 13). In future studies. as in a study reported by Chalmé. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus. therefore.. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. in studies of driving behaviour. 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.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. A further methodological problem occurs when one tries to measure states or traits with psychological tests and associate them retrospectively with crash situations that occurred some time ago. the longer the time period for data collection. 1996). heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. blood pressure. as well. the more information is lost through memory lapses. all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. In the present research. though. 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. Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. for instance.
In the present research. 1999). 2002). a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber. The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables. as well. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. 1971). and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. individual standard. 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.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . Unfortunately. there is a certain imprecision to the measure.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. Second. 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.6. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval. in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. 1997. 5. Mercer. First. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. and the hypothesis (H2. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months.
Kahneman. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. although this has not been firmly established. because they have taken place recently. 1973.. it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. Often. Specifically. 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. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. But.frequency that were used in this research. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. 1993. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. 2004). 2003. 121). in other words. In much the same way. 2002). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. 181). but not always. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. p. Wood & Boyd. 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. 213 . this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. 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. 1982). frequency or distribution in the world (p. eventful or recent. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 1993). 2008). Slovic & Tversky. but because they are inherently easier to think about. 1974). This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 2003).
the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. in their studies of roadway aggression. 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. asked participants to record the time of day. Sansone. auditing the accuracy of drivermaintained records and scoring reams of data were all tasks that were judged to be beyond the capability and scope of the present research. (2003). 2001) . it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. on one hand. road conditions. Deffenbacher et al. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. Finally. during periods of low traffic volume. where driving histories generally include lengthy. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund.. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings. but training participants in standardised record-keeping.In the Malaysian environment. for example. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. Similarly. 2000). Of course. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . 1991).
Summala.studies undertaken. It was felt. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs. the decision was made to use participants’ subjective. Ranney. Michon. Further research is required. the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . 2004). 2002. that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 1997). during the study design process. are testable and contain no contradictions. 5.g. have high information content. selfreported measure used here. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure. drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. To summarise. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. 1985.7 5.. 2005). Good theories are simple. 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. 1994).7. In addition. Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. 2005). over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 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. categorical perceptions of driving frequency. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. 2004). While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 1991). The function of useful scientific theory is to provide an explanatory summary of facts pertaining to related phenomena and to predict events that are associated with them (Huguenin. In the present research. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.
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. 94). p. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. 294). The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. if they are modest in ambition. stating that. on the other hand. Although one might agree with the statement (ascribed at different times to Helmholtz and to Lewin) that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. The answer to this question is possibly yes.patterns of relationships. The answer is probably not. 1997. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. at times. 32). Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. check facts. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. in particular to structure data. often in graphical form (Grayson. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. or represent processes. Hauer (1987). Grayson (1997) agreed. Throughout the development of traffic psychology.
In this case. argued that with theory-centred methods there was an inherent danger of confirmation bias – a tendency to evaluate ideas in a manner the meets existing expectancies (Chaplin. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). For a model to be elegant and have derivable quantitative values of parameters it must be simple … The quest for simplicity leads to monist models which focus on one aspect of driving. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. In the present research. In 217 . 95-96). for instance. 304). The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. and if they are resultscentred (pp.3). it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. who argued that. 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. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. hopelessness. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988). 2. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated.entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. Yet.
anxiety. depression. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories.3. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect. 2. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. While the present research 218 . According to Ranney (1994). the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 5. 2003). Kerlinger (2000) and others. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour.7. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) The major theories of driving behaviour and accident causation which do exist are largely premised on the concept of behavioural adaptation (BA). has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour. while still very much a model and not a theory. conscientiousness. not on everyday driving. extraversion. crash-free driving.. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. 2005) were included as distal variables. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. With several exceptions. openness.other studies. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe. much current research. as defined by Grayson (1997). sensation seeking (Sümer. for instance. psychoticism. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving.4). The contextual mediated framework.
BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Following this reasoning. 219 . some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. believing that fate will achieve its predetermined goals no matter what the individual does. Brown and Noy (2004) stressed that theories of BA and driving behaviour in general. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. or at least to react more slowly. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. no matter how reliable a safety device. those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. 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. Within their proposed conceptual framework. 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. On the other hand. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. Conversely. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions.did not test any of those theories specifically. They argued that locus of control. As a result. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight.
can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels.7. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA. The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. al. 220 . task capability (Fuller. 1982). Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression.3 Driver Selection. Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. Summala. these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Specifically. could be screened out. 5. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. Gidron & Davidson. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk.. 2005. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. 1996). changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. 2004). whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Typically. scarce resources for screening drivers. 1997. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility.In the present research. though. once identified. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Christ et al. external locus of control and hostile attributions. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. 2002. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. 1996). (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes.
These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering. or legal intervention. for the last fifty years. education. 1957).4. This framework can be integrated with the “Three E’s” to identify specific crash prevention measures arising from the findings of the present research. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.7. and machines are highly intricate (p. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie.7.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.4. teams of humans. World Health Organisation. 5. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. 1961. Unlike 100 years ago. educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). the Haddon Matrix (Haddon. in the the traffic engineer’s role has increasingly become one of improving the efficiency of an existing roadway system rather than building new higher capacity roads.5. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. Slinn.4).4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have.7. 1957. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 1). At the same time.
for instance. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. At the same time. In the case of LKA. Maggio & Jin. Suda & Ono. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. 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. 2001). there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled.6). These have been applied to in-car. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. 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. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. (Bishop. 2003).application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. depending on environmental factors. Murazami. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. 2005). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. 222 . there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Stough.6). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. 2001). The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small. Sadano. or the adaptive automation concept. operator workload and performance (Inagaki.
with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. changes in traffic speed. Brown & Noy.6). in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Black. The present research also found that freeway urgency. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. 1993. Tassinary. Parsons. Richardson & Downe. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 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. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 2000). Traffic management may also be carried out for easons other than safety. and management of parking and loading arrangements that influence the speed of traffic. Ulrich. 2003. 1999. 2004. 1997). but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. Herzog. 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. was associated crash outcomes. in particular to pursue environmental. 1998). traffic 223 . Fountaine and Knotts. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar.
Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. Probably. questions of alternative urban structure. 1991). however. p. Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 1996. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. and whether this information varies according to the situation. Proctor. 224 . 1992). Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. inexperienced drivers. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. 1996. however. Engineering interventions capable of assisting in the focusing of attention to the driving task have been largely understudied and considerable research will need to be carried out before practical applications can be implemented effectively and dependably. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. have pointed out that many problems still exist in the implementation of such technological solutions and that some of these – including the creation of higher mental workloads and overestimation tendencies in the use of information – may be particularly salient for young. engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. Dietze. journey purpose or other human factors. 309). and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have.
and likelihood of. “rumble strips” in expressways.1. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. keeping. lane road conditions. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. Hi H 1. 225 . unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. transitions for. – 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. etc. 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. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. infrastructure. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS).Table 5. to allow easier lanes and synchronised actuated increase in steering overtaking and lane signals decreases the need as the vehicle nears a lane. departure warning. 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. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards.6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.
226 . the systems intersection modification. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure. than the safety standard. 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”.(continued) H 1..1 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. Radar. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors. to in-vehicle display terminals. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. generally pilot”. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. point. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit.1.2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. ACC systems provide modifications. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs. H 1. 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.1. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. including those in adjoining lanes. the host vehicle. are travelling. traffic lights) safe.
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. Such devices include chicanes. has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. H 1.1.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes. signs with calming or vehicles.3 vertical displacement. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. environment and other frustrating stimuli. “Speed tables”. 227 . coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals.
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. 228 . weather-related road conditions. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. notification of construction ahead. This information allows drivers to avoid or. safety messages. H 1. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress.1. to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. at least.
5.4. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. The present research suggests that. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education. 2001). in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle. to some extent. to inadequacies in driver training and testing.3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004).7. It suggests that. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. 229 . Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. however. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. like community centres or places of worship. teachers or the police. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. 73). The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. publicity campaigns and incentive schemes to be offered as part of the activities within mosques (Che Ali Bin Che Hitam. In a study of traffic awareness in developing countries. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic.
or an internal locus of control. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others.7. N6). p. 2007.5. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory. 265). road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. First. Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. The bias of false consensus. that “Of these three approaches. 1030). and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. legal measures change least often. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors.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. such as visibility of enforcement. however. and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. 1978. Second.4. from the findings of the present research. 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. was studied in a 230 . (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. They also stated. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. p.
Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. 498). on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. Parker. Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. Ajzen. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. is allowed to occur in a Just World. drivers need to resolve the contradiction between cognitions: “traffic laws are laws” and “I violate traffic laws. 1991. Azjen & Fishbein. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). 1992). 2001. Future research is needed to determine the extent to which beliefs in a Just World and the false consensus bias influence both subjective norms and attitudes underlying 231 . Reason & Baxter.” 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).sample of drivers by Manstead. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. By doing so. to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. 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. Stradling. on the other. after all. 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). Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control.
By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. 232 . Similarly.drivers’ decisions to adhere. 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. or not adhere. it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001).
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential. as proximal to the crash outcomes. ethnicity. 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. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. In doing so. Wállen Warner & Åberg. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes.. Sümer et al. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 2005. A contextual mediated model. it was concluded that driver experience. hopelessness. 2003. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. Iverson & Rundmo.g. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. In the present research. 2002.. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Results have indicated that. as expected. 233 . gender. Sümer. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. locus of control. when risky. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. age.
g. and accident risk (e. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. it is argued here. Hoyt. as well as statistical grounds. In the present research. task capability (Fuller. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour.. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. leading to the tentative conclusion that it is the aggressive aspects of Type A behaviour that are instrumental in relationships between TABP and safety outcomes. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. or external locus of control. that when faced with competing models in safety studies. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 1995. the best fit usually implies the best model. 1982). Harrell. In most cases. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. 1973).In the current literature. while internal locus of control has been frequently associated with safer work and lifestyle practices (Guastello & Guastello. measures of aggression had direct effects on all components of self-reported behaviour in traffic. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala. Montag & Comrey. This is Of the variables studied. 1987). However.. 2003). 1974). 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). 1986. Further.
it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. Several authors (e. a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. cultural anthropology. in combination.g. 1998. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. Rothengatter. 2005. 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 examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. Huguenin. However. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. they 235 . For example. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. road engineering and ergonomics.aggression were observed. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence.. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects. Groeger & Rothengatter. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. 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. as well.
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. In the present research. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. educational and enforcement spheres.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. 236 . 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. management. 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. Indeed. 313). a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes.
289-296.. individual crash level approach. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. A. N. and Anurag. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. (2003).  Adolphs.R. Third edition. and Kulanthayan. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC).  Ahmad Hariza. (1999).B.E. S. T. 25. A. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia.. 237 . Musa. Mohd Nasir. Mohd Zulkifli.  Abdul Rahman.H. A.T. The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Journal of Safety Research. Psychological Testing and Assessment. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. 581-587. MY: Pearson. and Law. Crash data analysis: collective vs.  Abdullah. R. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. (1979). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Åberg. Puzzles & Irritations. 5. H. Neural systems for recognizing emotion.  Abdul Kareem. A. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.. P. P.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty. L.  af Wählberg.S. 38(5). 1867-1874. Bahrain. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council. 473-486. (1993).. H. (2002).  Aiken. Subramaniam. L. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. 10(2). 31-39.H. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective. (2003). Petaling Jaya.  af Wählberg.. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. Drinking and driving: intention.A. (2002). R. (2003). and Pederson. (2005). M. Radin Umar. 12. 169-177. K. 35.E. (2007).
Day. Aggressive Behavior.D. (Eds. T.  Ajzen. (1985). In Stroebe. Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. W.T. J. Nature and operation of attitudes. 303-313. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.  Archer. The theory of planned behaviour. 27-58. Women’s Studies International Forum. 179-211.  Armitage. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. 52. 187-195. London: John Wiley & Sons. (Eds.A. T. Tubré. and Haigh. 340-342. Current Psychology: Developmental. S.. 238 . (2001). Learning. E. and Hewston. Personality. Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. 404-415. 22(3). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. and Tubré.  Åkerstedt. J. (1952). (2004). Bell.J. 10(6). M. (2003). A.J. C.  Ajzen.  Arthur. I.E. 291-307. M. and Kerrich. A. Annual Review of Psychology. Edwards. I.C. A.) European Review of Social Psychology.105-110.  Armstrong. and Christian. (1997). Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.  Amin. and Kecklund (2001). Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners..  Ajzen. J. Journal of Sleep Research. and Fishbein. 623-633. I. 7.H. I. S. 10. B. 50(2).G. Biometrics. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes. and Beckmann. (2001). Ajzen. 47. 23. Age. (1991). (2005). In Kuhl. W. gender and early morning accidents. J. Human Factors. Social..  Arbous. J. (1987). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. 33(3). M.
C. 2(4). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. B. and Tortosa. NL: Styx.-E. R.  Aylott. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. W.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. When hope becomes hopelessness.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways. GJ. Boston: Kluwer. Groningen. (2005.M.  Austin. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. P-E. and Dischinger. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). T. J. 34.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 231-234.S. M. (2001). (2002). 279-284. October 18). (Eds. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. strategic and statistical considerations. Barrett.  Baron.A.  Aschenbrenner. In Trimpop. (1997). Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1998). and Kenny. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. and Biehl. (Eds.  Barjonet. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers. and Alexander. R.D. and Carson. R. P. Human Performance. 1173-1182. 21-30). 2007 from http://www. K. (1994).  Barjonet. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. (1986).F. G.. F. Wilde.M.  Bakri Musa. Retrieved April 4. P.M. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). R. (Ed.-E.  Ballesteros. (1991).L. F.. Arthur. S. and Carbonell Vaya E. 239 .bakrimusa. P. In Barjonet. 89-105. Continuing carnage on our carriageways.A. 14-29).) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. and Tortosa.  Asian Development Bank (2005).. 51(6). Manila: Philippines.31-42.V. 4(2). 34. D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual.
T.C. New York: Meridian. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger. Palliative Medicine. In Rubin. R.  Beck. 42  Becker. M.A. and Steer. and Mills. (1993). Lester. K. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. Beck.M. A. and Weissman. H.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp.  Beck. Hartos. The level of and relation between hope. 240 .T.F.H.  Beck.. Psychological Bulletin. (1996). (1993).  Beck..) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp.T. Theory: the necessary evil.  Benzein. New York: Perennial Harper Collins. A.  Beck. and Trexler.S. 234(11). Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.. Cognitive models of depression. In Zeig.J. 29(1).G. A. D.) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale. 149-178). D. 1146-1149. A.  Beck..C. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. Journal of the American Medical Association. Weissman. Cognitive therapy. (1980). D. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior.G. G. A. New York: Teachers College Press. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Hostility and Violence. 218-229).T. 88.T. and Loftus. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. E. A. A. New York: Brunner/Mazel.T. and Berg. New York: Cambridge University Press. J.E. (1987b). A. (1974). 234-240. In (Flinders.  Beck. 73-84. (1975). R. 588-606. L. Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. 1(1). (1987a). (pp.K. A.  Bentler. and Bonnett. A. D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. (1976). (Ed.F. (Ed. (1999).T. 5-37. E. 19. J. Kovacs. 157-179). (Eds. and Simons-Morton (2002).  Belli.. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. P. Health Education and Behavior. (2005).
S.J. 34(1). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. E.  Blumenthal. Graziano. (1995). M. T.com.  Bina. Journal of Personality Assessment. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 472-481  Binzer.bernama. and Shimmin. New York: Routledge. Accident analysis and Prevention. A. F.D. Applying Psychology in Organizations. 2007 from http://www. (2006). R. F. 45(1).E. 44-51. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. K. Talley. H. Managing the high costs of road deaths..S.. Introduction to Ergonomics. A. 53. Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. S. T. Ben-Zur.C..my/bernama/v3/printable. 751-777.. Anxiety.. (1984). B.  Bernama. J. R.S. and Bonino. 15(1).  Bridger. M. 38(3).php?id=185148. Applied Psychology: An International Review. (2006).  Blacker. 43. R. Psychological Bulletin. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. 241 . Benjamin. 37.A. Williams.  Boff. 313-322. March 12). 132(5). Malaysian National News Agency. Psychology and road safety.A. A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. D. (2001). and Haney. (1994). Stress and Coping. 391-399.B. 95-104. 39-55.  Boyce.  Bettencourt.  Blasco. J. and Valentine. (2002). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. (1981). Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. Applied Ergonomics. Retrieved March 30. McKee. and Geller. New York: McGraw Hill. (2006. 37-40.
D. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’. International Journal of Educational Development. and Carbonell Vaya. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. and Cudeck. (1997). Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality.D.K. (Eds. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 4(4). 29-38  Brodsky. Levine. and Wilde. (2000).  Brown.W. W. 242 . W.. Goldzweig. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 18(2).S. (2004). R. R. T.C.C. P. C. R. 37(4). 32(1).. 21.J.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.E. 14. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 345-352. 24(1).  Brindle. (1948). 267-278. Political Geography. observational data and driver records. T. Briggs. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.D. N. (2002). T. C. 24. and Huguenin. R. (1992).E.. G. E. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. G.  Brown. R.C. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp.  Brown. Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. Ergonomics.P.  Burns. (1982).  Browne. (Eds. 20-23. Haliburton. In Rothengatter. 219-241.W.  Brown. (2005). Personality and Individual Differences.S. and Warren.  Brown. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities. D. I.G. 9-19). The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 105-124.M. and Ghiselli. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. I. M.  Bunnell. 445-455. E. 641-649. (1989). Schlundt. and Noy. I. Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. (1995). (2007). 27(3). 318-330.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Psychology. In Rothengatter. I.
and McIver. 31. (2003).. Human Brain Mapping. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. & Santos. Ergonomics. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Martin-Loeches. 63-65. Cohn. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. L. 35(6). and Tapia. R. Multiple perspectives.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. M. J.A. 243 . Buss. G. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. O. and Nasar. E.. (2001).. Environment and Behaviour.  Byrne. (2004). and Kline. (Eds. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.  Carmines. 9.H. E.M. M. (1999). (2000).P.H. 22. T. 21. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. F. J. J. Accident Analysis and Prevention.G.L. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. In Fuller. A. 47(15).A. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire.  Byrd. (1981).  Buss. W. Applications and Programming. (1974). T. Hinojosa. 45-50. Internal versus external control in India and Canada. J. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Gonzalez. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts. and Durkee. 736-751. (Eds). 65-115). J. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Cackowski. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. 290-299. Parada. J. (2004).K.. (1998).. B.F.. B. International Journal of Psychology. and Cortes. M.L.W. In Bohrnstedt. Mercado. (1957)..  Carment.  Caird.J. and Warren. and Borgatta. A. (2002). D. L. 15981613.  Carsten.D. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. 343-349. A.  Byrne. M.W. Applications and Programming.  Carretie. E.
com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. J. 467-477. (2007).W. Brazil. New York: Dell. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. Sunway Campus.  Chang. Campo Grande.-H. and Lim.ictct. T. (2004). Retrieved March 31.G.  Cheung. Matto Grosso do Sul.0.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age.  Chalmé. what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. P.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005).  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007).H. Howard. November). 61-71). R. (2000). Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong. R. Monash University. Personality and Individual Difference. 2007 from http:www. Carver. Cheung..F. and Denis. Dictionary of Psychology. 2008 from http://www. J. 557-562. W. S. What are we allowed to ask. gender and risky behaviors in Taipei. (1996). T. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Taiwan. N6. March 20-22.M. (Eds. Driving: through the eyes of teens. R. R. M.. November 12).pdf 244 . (1985). 41. (2007. The Star.ghipr. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. and Huguenin. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. F.  Chaplin.P. S. D. 10(2).D. H.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Malaysia. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. Retrieved October 15. Y.-L. and Yeh. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.. Visser.-H. (2006). In Rothengatter.  Cheah. and Nash. Kuala Lumpur. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. 21(4). 109-122.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.
Driver selection and improvement in Austria. R. C.D.  Clarke. Panosch. (1999). J.  Chliaoutaks. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK. and Bukasa. Bartle.. C. 193-200. hopelessness and suicide ideation. A. (2002). Koumaki. Demakakos. (1992). and Truman. 33. MacGregor. P. M. (Ed. Lamsudin. 1283-1289.P. S. (Eds.L. 431-443. Ward. T. Journal of Safety Research. and Lee-Gosselin. and Costello. and Darviri. Smiley. and Ward. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. (2005). Retrieved December 7.makeroadssafe. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. Cancer Nursing.pdf  Conrad.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res.C. Kasniyah... Helmets. Tzamalouka. M..G.. Y. In Chmiel.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006. E.  Chmiel. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 377-390). Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Time vs.. 22(3). (2000). N. B. Safety at work. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues.E. 196-203. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. 13(2). 24(2).. D. 974-981. H. N. R. 39.K. 255-274). Accident Analysis & Prevention. Bakou. 38(6).  Chung. French. R. P. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. and Huguenin. N. 2007 from http://www. )2007). (2007). and Stiles.S. June).’ Injury Prevention. Personality and Individual Differences. (2004). M.. Towner. P. E. Personality traits and the development of depression.M. C.D.... W. and Chan. 245 . London: Wiley-Blackwell. C. S. A. V. Bradshaw. (1996). 679-684. 28(2).  Chipman. Cairns. Chioqueta.  Christie. G. In Rothengatter. N...) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.  Christ. 125-129. P.. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. T.T.
20(5).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. The Star. American Psychologist. N48  de Raedt.thestar. (2006. 10.D. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’.. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.  Cresswell. P. Amsterdam: Elsevier. P.A. (1996).  Crombag. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. R.asp?id-7003.  Crittendon. February 8). D.F. October 18). 263. 2007 from http://blog. and Patel. R. 152-171.W.S. and van Koppen. and Froggatt. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario.  Davies. and Santos. and McRae. T. Accident proneness. R. P. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment. (1995). L.R. (1991). 246 .J.  Costa.J. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. F.L. K. (Eds. H. (1962). Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis. Retrieved April 5. 16(5). 98-117. 5(1).  Cozan. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. Wagenaar. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. D.M. 64. and Huguenin. (2005). In Rothengatter. Cooke. 10. 95-104. W.M. N. Legal and Criminological Psychology. W. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). R.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers.my/permalink. (2002).A. Mental workload. 45-62.  de Waard. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. and Durso. 161-175). p.com. In Fuller. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. 21-50. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults. (1961). The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. G.  Davin Arul (2005.T.
R. Tucson.A. 26(1). Behaviour Research and Therapy. (1998). (Eds. Petrilli. E. J. (2004). K. 34. E. (2005). In Dewar.. On the measurement of driver mental workload. Filetti. Journal of Counseling Psychology.B.  Deffenbacher. J.  Deffenbacher. (1996). 161-171). N. (2002b). de Waard. 209-233).L. S.L. 383-402. Lynch.S. 14(12)..L. Oetting.L..C. T. Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. Journal of Counseling Psychology. D. R. L.T. Oetting. 575-590. E. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action..  Devashayam. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates. 5-17. 28.R. S. and Olson. (1999). and Swaim. R.  Deffenbacher. and Olson. 27(4). J.. Personality and Individual Differences. (2003).L.E. 111-142). 50(2). 247 . 373-393. R.  Dien. E.. J. E. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers. Age differences – drivers old and young. 47. T. Ergonomics.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. 41. and Salvatore. Lynch. and Ameratunga. 1-20.. (2003).S.R. Richards. E.S.F. R. Tucson. P.  Deffenbacher. M. Women’s Studies International Forum.L.D. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. In Dewar.. Huff. Cognitive Therapy and Research. R. (1997). and Carbonell Vaya. Oetting. 333-356.  Dewar.E.E. (2000). 123132. T. Individual differences. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. T. The expression of anger and its consequences.L.  Dharmaratne.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.  Delhomme. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers.N. (Eds. Lynch. P. and Morris. R.W. C..D. P.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. In Rothengatter. R. 729-730.R. and Brookhuis.  Dewar.S. J. (Eds. E. (2002a).R. and Oetting. R. Lynch. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. R. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. and Meyer.
A. C. In Rothengatter.L. A. (1997). 323-331.. Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. and Rodgers. R. (2004.L.. and Coie.  Dobson. 14(2). R.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Brown. A. M. Dietze. L.Y.G. Social Science Journal 38. M. 1146-1158. D. (Ed. November).  Dixey. Sungai Petani. L. M.  Dodge. Jenkins. 31. E. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press.  Dula. ‘Fatalism’. and Carbonell Vaya.T. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology..A.E. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 278-285). socio-demographic characteristics and accidents. and McFadden.. (Eds. Women drivers’ behaviour. (1999). H. 248 . R. December).  Dukes. (2003). Kedah. Miller.E.  Downe. M. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage.. (2007. C.. T. Accident Analysis and Prevention.a.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). Mohd Yusuff. S. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town.L. 197208. J. Lim.A. 33. Bahar. 223-231). J. Asian Institute of Medicine. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive. and Mayser. Malaysia. Ebersbach. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. negative emotional and risky driving. T.. Knowledge transfer. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.. 85-92). S. (Eds. Science & Technology.D. and Loke. Clayton.. 525-535. K. In Khalid. W. Lippold..S. M..R. (1999). T.M. 263282. Nigeria. (2003). S.  Draskóczy. Powers. (2001). 53. J. (1987). Health Education Research.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. In Dorn. C.G.  Downe. Ball.P. and Che Doi. and Ballard. Amsterdam: Pergamon. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. N. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture.
(1984). 293-300. 69. Psychological Bulletin. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. Lalovic. C.B. (1962). and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis.  Dunbar. Brno. 50(13). 22(4). Retrieved December 25. Czech Republic..org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik..  Elander. and Turecki. J.ictct. 2007 from www.A. 17-26). Annals of Internal Medicine. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. (2005).  Elangovan. N. In Underwood. A. and French D. J. A. Chawky. R.. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. 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. Dumais. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. (1993). Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. G. (2005). C. 209-306).L. West. In Lefcourt. 113. (2002). R. Causal ordering of stress. (1968). A.. 74. G. H. (1996). A. New York: Academic.  Engel.. (1971). 249 . 201-22. 838-844.D. 4(3). G.. G. (2001). 279-294. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.R.pdf  Engel..M. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Kim. Ménard-Buteau. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.  Ellis. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp. G. March 20-22.L. Boyer. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.. Annals of Internal Medicine. 159165. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. (Ed. Journal of Transport Geography.  Elvik..  Edwards. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. A. J. Lesage. Leadership and Organizational Development.(Ed. 771-782. satisfaction and commitment. R.
Risk Analysis. and Chambers. S. L. S.  Farmer. L. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. J.  Farmer.  Ferguson. and Alpert.. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers. 86(6). and Popovich. Barnard.  Ey. 250 . (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. The Star.  Farran.. Herth. 19-36. 23(5). American Journal of Public Health. N22. 84). Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. E.  Evans. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. p. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.G..S.  Evans. W.J. (1984). Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. L.  Farik Zolkepli (2007. G. 38). London: Medical Research Council. (1996). 784-786. K. (2000). 6(1). A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. C..G. M. (1976). (1991).A. L. Traffic Safety and the Driver. B.  Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No.G. Evans. (1926). E. 421-435. E. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.M. Hadley. (1995). L. E. E.6bil losses yearly. December 10).  Farmer. E. London: Medical Research Council. Klesges. (1939). 81-94.M. New York: McGraw Hill. (1986).M. London: Medical Research Council.. (1929).000 and RM5. and Chambers. and Chambers.A. Patterson. 16. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. 55). Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach.
. A. August). (2000). Linderholm.  Forward. New York: Knopf. B.. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Friedman. R. and Bragg.P.A. (2005). and Seiden.  Fuller. E. and Järmark.  Forward. S. S. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. M. Belief. R. 37. (1986). and McCartt. and Ajzen. 12(4). Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. (1990). 137-145. P. Journal of Counseling Psychology.H. 289-298. K.  Fuller.R.T.E.  Firestone. 9. Malays and Indians compared. S.  Fuller.. (1998. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.  Frazier. (2005). Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers.A.. Attitude. Ferguson.  Fontaine. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Teoh. 77-97). Human factors and driving. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Women and traffic accidents. 412-426. Cross Cultural Management. J.18(4). consequences and considerations. 207-213. R. P. M. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour.  Finn. R. and Santos. (2004). R. and Richardson. 63-77. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese. A. Accident analysis and Prevention. 251 . H. R. Journal of American College Health. I. 47-55. R.A. In Fuller. 38(5). (2002). causes. S. Intention and Behavior. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. (1974). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. Journal of Safety Research 38. (1975). Type A Behavior and Your Heart. 115-134. 66. (2006).W. I. S. 461-472. R. Recherche Transports Sécurité. and Barron.  Fishbein. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Tix.W. 51(1). and Rosenman. (2007). San Francisco.
Petaling Jaya. (2003). In Rothengatter.  Glass.B. Ergonomics.D. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. Y. G. (1949).  Gomez. European Journal of Public Health. E.. 540-546. (Eds. (1999). D. A. 109-128. Y. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. 58(1). 252 . R.S. (2008). Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application.  Galovski. T.  Gidron. Behavior Paterns.  Garg.  Gidron.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. (1997). K.T. L. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.A.. and Brown.. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Ghazali. N. (1999). (Eds. Hillsdale. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. (2006). rights and redistribution in Malaysia. and Carbonell Vaya. R. J.  Ghiselli. Mutu. and Davidson. and Hyder.C. A.B. 19. Tracing the ethnic divide: race. (1996).S. Stress and Coronary Disease. (2006). Journal of Food Products Marketing. Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. R. Nandy. E. and Blanchard. 42(9). E.. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Aggressive Driver. McHugh. 1233-1248. Fuller. A. 203-220.E. 167-202).T. Journal of Applied Psychology.W.  Grayson. H. 13-21.  Graham. E. 6. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. 93-96). D. E. S.A. 487-491. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and Pender. MY: Sage.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. (2006). and Gomez.. 33(6). In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. C. T. 16(5). E. Gal. (1977).E.. and Syna Desevilya. C. 12(4). Malta. 109-116. N. and Mahbob. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.
 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.
Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2005).  Lerner. 3. Journal of Personality Assessment. and Stiller. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.  Lenior. IV..G. A. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 37. W. 397-401. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.B. 177-196. Journal of Social Psychology.J. H. H. (2002). 262 . 38. pp.  Lee. 253-269). 2nd Edition.M. L. Applied Ergonomics. New York: Academic. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp. (2002). H. 97. Conner. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Levenson. N. Additional dimensions of internal-external control.M.  Levenson.K. Malay dominance and opposition politics. G. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. (2001). 659-662. H. H. Dutton. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation.M.  LeShan. New York: E. C.  Levenson. (1974).V. British journal of Psychology. D.. R. and Nutter. The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.407-423. Billittier. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review.  Lefcourt.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Leech. H.P. and Morgan. 93. K. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. Cancer as a turning point. 41. Lawton. 377-383. Barrett.  Lefcourt. Jehle..A. Mahwah. Janssen. (1973). In Lefcourt. (Ed.. E. A. (1975).M. (1989).C. (1983). Moscati. (1976). 303-304. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. 479-490. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry.M..L. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. G. H. D. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). R.
Hwang. (1981). (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour. (Ed. A. Neighbors..com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541.. In Lefcourt. E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. S. The Star Online. 8-9  Liverant. 2007 from http://www. (2007). 263 . The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1980). 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.P. New York: Academic. (1979). J. 2007 from http://thestar. W. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Looi.  Lim.. L-L.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Differentiating among internality. (1997). D. 15-63). and Scodel. K. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. L. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. (2004).com.S.  Levy.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. Huang.M. (1999. 36.my/news/story. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1. Levenson. and Donovan. D. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. 11. 39(3).  Lindsey. powerful others and chance. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. 7. H-D. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. R.P.. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General. Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents.  Lonczak. Retrieved April 5.  Lonero. H. Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. Psychological Reports. 59-67. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. (1960).  Lin.A. 10. February 2). H. and Yen. (2007. Retrieved May 14.htm. C. 125-127. I. March 26).limkitsiang. 213-222.M.S. Wu. M-R.. 536-545. In Rothe. (Ed.  Loo. H-F.
18(4). Watson. 103. (1994). Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Report No.L. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. 31. L.  Matthews.  Macdonald. (1999). J. (1994.F.  Marcoulides. A. M. behavior and cognition. 129. Vissers. I.. 62-67. Psychological Bulletin.R. (1986). In Dorn. G.. 27(1). Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.W. Victoria NSW. (2000). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. W.W. and Mooran. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex. (1998).  Marsh. and Balla. Lourens. 391-411. 73-87. H. P. and Hershberger. 593-597. age.M.A.A. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. 55(2).  Marsh. R. and McDonald. A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. and Jessurun. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. J. R. Malaysia. D. Accident Analysis and Prevention..M. Balla. K.  Martin. Annual mileage. R.F. G. (1997). Aldershot UK: Ashgate. 68(5). 869-897. Quality & Quantity. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender.L..  Maakip.L.A.L. D. Accident Analysis & Prevention.R.28. Monash University Accident Research Centre. 299313. C.R. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. and level of education.M. Journal of Personality. Campbell.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp.K.P. and Williams. Journal of Rehabilitation. 185-217.  Luckner. May). S. 264 . J. J. C. of affect.. (Ed. (1995). 233-252). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (1988).L. (2003). M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Massie. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony. A. (1989). Australia. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.  Maruyama. H. and Wan.
L. (2005. 649-663. I. 9. R. The University of Reading. D. I.P. G. Understanding Human Behavior. 34(47). Ergonomics. Unconscious suicides. Rinehar and Winston. Perspectives Psychiatriques. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention. New York: Plenum.htm  McConnell. S.malaysia-today. 769-778.P. Personality in Adulthood..P.  McKenna. 29. J. New York: Guilford.  Mercer. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. Hampshire UK. 23. Gilbody. and Costa. (1974).. D.  Md-Sidin. Duncan.W. M.  McRae. (2007).. 2007 from http://www. and Burkes. Ismail. Waylen.E. (1986).D. Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis.  McKenna. (1989).R. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. (1990). F.  McMillan. and Brown. A.. November 6).  Mendel.net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. G. Retrieved April 5. M. 265 ..V. (2009). Journal of Managerial Psychology.E. (1977). 45-52. 173-181. Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. Fort Worth TX: Holt. [ in press]. P. Sambasivan. Beresford. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis.  McKenna. Psychological Medicine. (1989). Risk Analysis. 37(6).  Meichenbaum. S. 71-77.. (1998). and Neilly. E. F. J. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. (1983). Malaysia Today.
335-342. M. Safety Science. In Helkama.panducermat. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Aggressive driving. Retrieved May 23. (1985).  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007).L. (2006). Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. (1989). E. and Keskinen. microsleep episodes. 33(3). Hasselberg.  Monárrez-Espino. P.L. L. Statistics. H. Nhan.C.  Mizel. Finland. C. J. D.. G. V. J. (1983. 266 . and Niemi. 44(2).  Miles. 6(2). Journal of Applied Psychology. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour.  Mikkonen. (Eds.A.L. 38(6). M. (Eds.. 341-353. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. L. 147-161. Journal of Applied Psychology. Turku. 75-85. J.my/en/street_smart_statistik. and Laflamme.A. 2006 from http://www. 61(3). 195-211. Kayumov.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. A. K.J. Michon. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. and Johnson.org/pdf/agdr3study. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. J. what should we do? In Evans.org.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. (1949). (2003). 21(4). (1997).aaafoundation. Retrieved December 15. New York: Plenum.  Mintz. from http://www. L.  Mintz.php.M. and Blum.. (2006). R. Simulator performance. A.pdf  Moller. 401406. In Aggressive driving: three studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Washington DC.  Michon. (154). 2007. l. A re-examination of the accident proneness concept.E. and Shapiro. Bulmas. E. Time intervals between accidents. May). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.. and Schwing.
R.) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp.  Näätänen. and Krasner. A.  Niméus. MY: Sage. and Maniam.  Mousser.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 320-388). A. R. W. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. Religioin 37. and Gomez. R. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (Eds.S.  Näätänen. and Summala H. (1956). Journal of Applied Psychology. 8. J. Boston: Pearson. (Eds. Visual Cognition. 51-63. T. 72. D. K.  Morris. Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Nandy. Journal of Affective Disorders. Amsterdam: North Holland. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 137-144.L. I. (1994). S. 125-132.  Novaco. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India.B. 339-343. In O’Donoghue . (2007). Accident proneness and road accidents. (2003). 167-202). and Comrey. (2007). 38(1). A. P. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature. R. 42. A. (1987). 6.  Most. Petaling Jaya. 267 .L. L. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.T. (1974)..E. E. 15(2). 243-261. A.  Moore.L. Rajasingham-Senanayake. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). and Astur. W. and Summala.. (1976). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. (1999). 32-37.  Nandy. Fifth Edition. Transcultural Psychiatry.  Neuman. 164-174.. H. Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. Montag. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. New York: Allyn & Bacon. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors.
445-460. In Fuller. J..L (2002). and Z.W. Oxford UK: North Holland. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero.. p. Aldershot. A. (1997). 468-472.  Ogden. A. (Ed. 171.  O’Connell. (1997). (1996). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. 2(5). 92-93. 1016-1024. 253-326). Pentilla. December 9). Temes. J.38.F (2001).R. (2007. (2002).  Ochando. 201-215). and Hermida. Driver perception-response time. Driver suicides. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Straits Times. 268 . Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering. 4. P. J. and Lonnqvist. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. A.W. Human factors in modern traffic systems. British Journal of Psychiatry. and Olson.. Ergonomics.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. Tucson. E. Injury Prevention.L. W. R. Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.A. says operator. Garner. Spanish Journal of Psychology. P. (Eds. R. (1996. In Baenninger.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. R. and Santos. 654-656. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain. In Dewar.  Ohberg. 4(2).  Olson.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. Novaco. Tropical Medicine and International Health.  Novaco. Zwi (1997). and Williams.B.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 40(10). M. R. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. p. N51. Aggression on roadways. (2001). February 8). 237-252.  O’Neill. B. 34. I. (2000). P. K. R.  Noy. (1998). F. 43-76).W.S. UK: Ashgate. M.
Tassinary. Manstead. B.S. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). and Schneider.  Parker.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. 113-140. (1995). Lajunen. (pp. J. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. 479-486. Hebl. 3-13. Journal of Environmental Psychology. (2008). Personality and Individual Difference. and Saleh. (2001). and Synodinos. (Eds. T. Traffic locus of control.  Parsons.  Parker.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.  Özkan. J. (2004). Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Huguenin.E. Accident Analysis & Prevention..  Parsons. C. Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. D. (2002).R. (1974).W.. British Journal of Psychology. 229-235. Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation.ictct. J.G.A. Lajunen. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 38(3). Özkan.. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Anger on and off the road. 92. T. T. M.pdf -  Pai. T. D.. C. S. Accident Analysis & Prevention. (1998). 40. R. Reason. W. R. Retrieved December 20. (2005). 1036-1048. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT).S. and Lajunen (2005). 125-134). and Kaistinen. 34. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. A. D.S.  Parker.T. L. O. H. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter. driving violations and accident involvement. Helsinki.. 37(1).R and Stradling. (1988). 533-545. M. R. 18. and Grossman-Alexander. 269 . T. and Summala. Finland. Driving errors.  Papacostas.  Parkinson. 456-461.. 2007 from www. 42. Ergonomics.M. 507-526. N.D. Ulrich. 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..G. 38(5).
Retrieved March 31. D. 201-204. 12(3). Peden. Automotive Vehicle Safety. (2000). Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. and Hyder. and Åkerstedt. (1980). (1986). M. D. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. Quera-Salva. Simple reaction time.H. Campo Grande...J.and Schuman.R. E.  Peters. D. World report on road traffic injury prevention.  Philip. Accident Analysis and Prevention.R. K. A. and Mathers (Eds. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. 68-79. M.J. 324. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour.) (2004). Brazil. Journal of Sleep Research. (2003). duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors.  Phares. (1999). 1153. D. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. and Renner. A. Taillard. 35. Switzerland: World Health Organization. B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Perceptual and Motor Skills.. S. Mohan. A.. 8(1). 2007 from http:www.A. and Baldwin.  Peltzer. A.. Locus of Control in Personality.  Perry. D. March 20-22. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 9-14 270 . 147-154. London: Taylor & Francis.A. (2002). G. E.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry. (1971). G.A. Matto Grosso do Sul. Sleet.. M. L. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.  Per. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence.ictct. and Singh. B. Bioulac.. P.M. 3. (2005). T.B. 875-878.  Pestonjee. Jarawan. Superstition. Geneva. 91. and Peters. Hyder.. (1976). Scurfield. U. 63. R.C. 619-623. and Al Haji. (2002).s  Pelz. British Medical Journal. J. W. Morristown NJ: General Learning.  Peden.
33. J. Manstead. Plous.-G. (1990). S. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. Baxter. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. R. 78-80. 16(3). (2005). P. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.  Rautela. 1315-1332. S. Human Error.S. 49(4). E. S. (1976). D. (2000).I. T.. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.J. 673-678.E.  Reason. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2007). T. (1993). 26. Chalmers. 334-343. 369-374  Renner. 32(3). and Langley. and Anderle. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. Journal of Clinical Psychology.N. A. Rider training.  Preston. and Pant. L. 284-288. F. S.  Proctor.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 32(2). (1996).. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. (1989). New York: McGraw Hill.. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making.A. 29(1). Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. R.  Reeder. (1990). and Lussier. W. C. (1965). S. 733-750. 271 . 317-333. 20(4).J. Breen. and Harris.S.  Ranney. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. 3112). Cambridge University Press.J. S. J. 566-573.  Reason. (1994). and Corlett. Stradling. Disaster Prevention and Management. C. 32.. J. J.  Porter.D. Ergonomics. K. Hopelessness. Traffic Engineering and Control.J.  Radin Umar. and Campbell. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. (1991). 299-300.  Prociuk. internal-external locus of control and depression.H.
(2004). Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity.S. In Rothengatter. (2003). 272 . 1-7. R.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.. Report to the General Assembly. (2005).190. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference.R. and Voas. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. T.64. M. 2007 from http://202.html  Robbins. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. Weinstein. Anger.D. 37(3). and Huguenin. R. Organizational Behavior. 485-489.pdf  Risser.efpa.  Risser. (2003. (Eds. (2000). 45(8). (Ed). 2007 from http://www. 34(15). S.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Tippetts.B. 569-582. Retrieved May 23. 37(1).G. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.P. A. R. Theories of science in traffic psychology. Retrieved December 11. P-A. S. E. K. (2007) Statistik2006. Ergonomics. S. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole.  Romano. In Lim. Amsterdam: Elsevier.A. Stress and Health.G. cities.  Richardson. Journal of Safety Research. Retting. and Downe. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. Journal of Safety Research. and Solomon. P. R. E. Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia.. and Nickel. W-R.  Rimmö. April). Singapore: Elsevier. and Voas.  Robbins. (1999).  Rice.  Romano. 453-460.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. P. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. Accident Analysis & Prevention.Y. H.L. R.. S. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. Tippetts. (2000). (2002). R.
A. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. (2001) Objectives. T. 80. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. and Shahar. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (pp. (Ed. (1998). (Ed. 88.P. (1990). Capital & Class. In Rothe. C. 595-600).) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 56-67. T. (1975). 489-493.P. and Bhopal. P-E. (1966). (2005). T.  Rothengatter. Traffic safety: content over packaging. The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. G. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. American Psychologist.  Rothengatter.  Rowley. 428-435  Rothe. 43(1). (2006). J. In Underwood. G. Boston: Kluwer. C.  Rotter.  Rotter.(Ed. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia.B. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. In Barjonet. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable.  Rowley. topics and methods.B. T. M. 249-258. T. (2002).  Rotter. (2002). 308-331. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. whole issue. J. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk.B. J. and Bhopal. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. 3-12). 10.) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII.  Rothengatter. Psychological Monographs. 214-220).B. 84-115. M. (Ed. 5. 273 . (2005). J. Rosenbloom.  Rothengatter. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities. J. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson. 43(3). 45. (2007).
373-376. (2006. Kuala Lumpur. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. (2002). Malaysiatoday (Reuters). Correlations between traffic. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Kuala Lumpur. J. 33-36. September 26).  Sadiq. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. 2007 from http://www. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.A2. B.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. IBU Pejabat Polis. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. In Fuller.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Bukit Aman. S. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. R.  Salminen. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. sports and home accidents.  Rude drivers lack emotional control.malaysia-today. The Star.  Saad. Bukit Aman.rmp. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. IBU Pejabat Polis. Bukit Aman. 2003 from http://www. IBU Pejabat Polis. p. and Santos (Eds. F.). (2005.my. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier. J. Retrieved December 11. September 29). (1999).  Salminen. Thrills.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). Retrieved May 22.  Sabey. 37(2). and Heiskanen. occupational.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). (1997). S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Bukit Aman. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. IBU Pejabat Polis. Kuala Lumpur. 23-42).gov. M. Kuala Lumpur. 29(1).A. Road Safety – Back to the Future. (2005).htm 274 .
C. Accident Analysis and Prevention. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. and Sætermo. H. P. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. The research process: of big pictures. M. M. 179-188. The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. Nagoya: Japan. Morf. C. In Sansone.  Sendut. K. In Honjo. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. D. 673-687. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. P.T.F.K. November 15). 293302  Salih. I. 314-318. (1995).F.E. Applied Economics.. and Schade.F. Jr. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. Traffic Engineering + Control. and Bourne. 38. 801-810.  Sambasivan. C. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Fosser. Severson. (1997).. Ball. L.I. and Bourne. 484-491. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. (1966). (2008.C. C. A..E. and sensation seeking. Jr. Sagberg. (2006).) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. 117-147). (Ed. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia.. K. 6(9).  Schwebel.).A.  Sansone. and Panter. (2003). and Young. 6. J. Asian Survey. J. V. L. Healy. Accident Analysis and Prevention. M. 35. (1981). (Eds. 29(3). 275 . conscientiousness.L. K. and Langley (2002).. Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia.  Schlag. Ericsson. and the social psychological road in between. 41. (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. Morf. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. C. Personal correspondence.A. and Panter. v.  Schneider.A.T.  Scuffham. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity. A. A. Regional Development Series.C. S. B. 34. 3-16). In Healy.. F. and Rizzo. little details..  Scuffham. A. (2004). M.
325-343. Dewar. (2001). Summala.  Sharkin. Journal of Consumer Research. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Ketchen... Boston: Kluwer. 137-160. M.R. U. (2004). P-E. (2000). (1988). American Journal of Psychiatry.E. (2003). Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. D. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. and Payne.  Shook. 276 .S.. C. J. and Kanekar. 51(1). Hartwick.  Sheppard.H. S. D. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. (1962).  Siegel.  Shapiro. K. C.  Selzer. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ).L. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach.T. (Ed. In Barjonet.  Shinar. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Journal of Counseling and Development. R. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 25. 397-404. 1549-1565.  Sharma. 3-7. Automobile accidents. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. L. B. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research. 180-205). (1988). Hult. 15(3). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 361-365.E. (2003). S. Ergonomics. J. G.. A. Sekaran. B. suicide and unconscious motivation. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.M. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. H. (1956).  Shinar. 66. New York: McGraw Hill.  Siegriest.J. 1.. (1998). 119(3). and Zakowska. Fourth Edition. E. 237-240. P.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 46(15).M and Kacmar. D.P. (2007). and Roskova. Strategic Management Journal. M. and Warshaw.L.
J. Lichtenstein. 1-18). Boca Raton. (2007). Ergonomics.. Journal of Risk and Insurance.  Slovic.  Slinn.) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. Product design with people in mind. D. In Kassinove. 1151-1158. 477-492. Fishchoff.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. (Ed.D.J. and Coombs. S. Reheiser. Crowson.org/publik/driving. and Sydeman.  Stanton..). Cognitive Therapy and Research. P.A.. 386-397. B. Issues in Science and Technology. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study.  Spielberger. and Watson. Oxford UK. N. Houston. Kurylo. (1995). B. J. M. C. and Frank. American Psychologist. (2001.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder... Retrieved December 25. 2007 from http://findarticles. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. H. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. C. Stress. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.K. R. (2007). Retrieved December 1. Auto safety and human adaptation. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. 21(4). Corrigan. International Journal of Stress Management. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists.K. FL: Taylor & Francis. August).A.. 2007 from http://www. and Guest.. P. 277 . Sinha.pdf  Spielberger. C. 47(8). London: Arnold. Jr. S. 50(8). (1992). (1977).R. 237-258. E.A.C. (Ed. 14(4). 44.  Stanton. and Poirier.C. In Stanton. B. Editorial. (2004).J. 1029-1030.G. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. (1997). M. Matthews. B. Winter). (1998). N.  Smiley. N. B. P.. expression and control of anger. Measuring the experience. 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.sirc.D. A. 49-68).
Safety-Critical Computer Systems. 529-544.R. D.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. UK: Edward Elgar. A.M. (1996). (Ed. Traffic Injury Prevention. (2001). 278 .A. and stress. (2003). In Lewis. N.. 139(6).E. 467-480. J. Sümer. 247-254. Novaco. N. 279-300).  Stevenson. 681-688.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. M. J. 949-964. (1978). N. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. 43(9). Traffic congestion. 37(4). P.L. N. Medical Journal of Malaysia. 44(3). (1988). (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia.  Sümer. and Pinto. Maggio.C.. N.  Steiner. 1359-1370.. N.  Stein. Journal of Psychology.. R. R.  Stokols. (Eds.. and Havland. Palamara.R. 178-182. D. and Campbell. Bilgic. and Jin. (1993).  Storey. (2005). M. and Erol. M.W. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2000). M. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 63. (2001). Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. H. Stokols. and Liwag. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. Morrison. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. J. Trabasso. Stanton.  Stough. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode.E.A.  Sümer. and Ryan.. D. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Type A Behavior. (2005). 35... R. Accident Analysis and Prevention. New York: Guilford. The Methodology of Theory Building. Ergonomics. 2(4). In Stough.  Stewart. G. Cheltenham. R. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. E.  Subramaniam. T. R. M. T.
vehicles. (1980). (1997).  Summala. 38. and Tantriratna. In In Rothengatter.. T. and Näätänen.) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. H.  Summala.N. (1988). (2005). (2006). Mahasakpan. N. M. and Punto. H. Karanci. (Ed.  Sümer.. Özkan. Accident risk and driver behaviour. P. In Underwood. Personal resources. pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 .  Summala. 41-52). R. T. and Merisalo. and de Bruin.  Summala. Sümer. Nguntra.. Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. 442-451. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. (Eds. 193-199. W. S. H. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. (Eds.K.. H. 31. G. 103-117. (Report 11). Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. S. H. (1994). Journal of Traumatic Stress. and Lajunen. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. 21. T. Koonchote. H. Ergonomics. (1996). P.. T. Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications.  Swaddiwudhipong.. Helsinki. 18(4). G. and Carbonell Vaya E.  Summala. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. A. 491-506.  Summala. N. and Gunes. Safety Science. T. 331-342.  Summala.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. H. 22(1-3). R. A. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision. 703-711. (1996).. (1986). H. 82-92). Human Factors. Nieminen. (1988). H.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2005). In Rothengatter. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers. 38(3). Berument. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 383-394). University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit.
R. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. and Theodorson. In Barjonet. S. (1969). 138(5).S.R. S. New York: Simon & Schuster. 167-172. Ono. and Kitamura.M. (2001). 241-263).  Tanaka. 241-257. A. The effects of road design on driving. (1985).  Tavris. (1998). 37-44. (eds. C.M. Journal of Clinical Psychology. and Layde. L.  Theeuwes.  Synodinos. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. D.233-239. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 18(4). S.  Theodorson. T. N. (Ed. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. (1989). A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. J. T. Ono.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. G. J. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. C. E. Y.. (2000). In Grimm. Kuhn. 609-615.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. and Fragopanagos (2005). 353-369. and Kitamura... 25(1). Y.S. The interaction of attention and emotion. 581-590. Neural Networks. J.  Tanaka. (1996).. Journal of Social Psychology. P-E. and Papacostas. Sakamoto.. P.A. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. Accident Analysis and Prevention. E.  Thompson.J. 33(2). Hopelessness in a community population in Japan. 34. 280 .  Taylor.E. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 52(6). Sakamoto. Boston: Kluwer. Fujihara. (2001). (1985). International Review of Applied Psychology. 42. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. S. and Yarnold. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.  Tanaka. E.G. Fujihara..C.. P.) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics.  Tavris. G. and Huba. G. B.
Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. R. 106(5). accident involvement. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later. (1997). J. H.) Handbook of Perception and Action. Injury Control and Safety Promotion. (2001).A and Hobbs. 32(3). and Everatt. 445-448. A.  Underwood. 4(4). (1974). (1949).F. D.  Trimpop. 281 .. Enns. (Eds. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 385-424. 2. and Milton. (1999). P. Personality subtypes of young drivers. J. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. J. G. (2004). Chapman. and Kirkcaldy.. Personality predictors of driving accidents. 7. In Neumann. and Kahneman. American Journal of Psychiatry. (1996). 321-333. B. Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. 5(5). J. O. and Sanders. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. and response to a traffic safety campaign. D.  Underwood.W. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. and McClure. 55-68. 123-130.  Tversky. 23(1). and Kahneman.  Tversky. 10(3). The accident prone automobile driver. 147-152. 1124-1130.  Turner. Cognitive Psychology. G. Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. 5. C. Judgment under uncertainty. 185.  Tiliman.. 11-22. and Vavrik. Volume 3: Attention.M. Journal of Counseling Psychology.T. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. (2003).  Underwood. London: Academic. P. (1985). G. A. Science.  Ulleberg. Anger while driving. 279-297. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. (1993).  Trick. R. G. C. Personality and Individual Differences. Mills. 207-332. Wright and Crundall. Thurman. A. Applied Cognitive Psychology.. W. L. D.E. (1973).
336-345. W. (1998). Retrieved September 1.pdf  Vallières. A. G. Harrison. T. D.ictct. “Accident prone. M. Cockfield.  Verwey. H.A.ictct. Driver selection and improvement in Germany.M.A. J. (1999). Harris. Italy. Matto Grosso do Sul. and Rothengatter. Personality and Individual Differences. 26. (Eds. Brazil. Campo Grande. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. R.D.. 43(2).F. 42.B.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. and McIntyre.J. Sanson. (1999). Bergerson. R. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Vaa. Ergonomics. 2007 from www. In Underwood. S.  Vasconcellos.. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Retrieved December 5. A. 913-921. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. March 20-22.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 9(2). S. 2007 from http:www.  Vavrik. In Rothengatter. D. T. (2005). 282 . and Vallerand. (2000). 24-29.. 39.. Ergonomics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. É.  Velting. J.” Recovery.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. On-line driver workload estimation... 444-458. Smart. E. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. (Ed. 210-222. 181-190). (2004).. (2005).D. (2007). T. W. and Huguenin. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours. Caserta. Utzelmann. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). A. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. Meijman. J. (2001).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.F.
 Waterman. 33. January 21).backwoodshome. G. M.com/articles/waterman37.  Waller. B. Stanton. 283 . 9..  Waller.theaa. and Little.P. Shope. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave. Verwey. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. (2006). (2001). (1997). 1-8).B. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach. 123-142. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. (Eds.A. and Åberg. New Zealand. Retrieved November 2.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. 2007 from http://www. P. T. and Carbonell Vaya E. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. and McKenna.pdf  Wei. (2001).html.  Wállen Warner... Elliot.S. Policing and Educatino Conference 2. (2000). In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. 5(4).A. N. 421-444. and Zaidel.M. Wellington.  Waylen.. Retrieved December 15. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 117128. (2009.T. and Mallinckrodt (2003). Personality and Individual Differences. T. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report). In Rothengatter. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time.F. Raghunathan.  Walker. and Young.E. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. P. M. (1998). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics. 28.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Heppner.F. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes.J.P. D. W.  Watson. 50(4). 2008 from http://www. J. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour. L.H. Backwoods Home Magazine. H. F. (2002). 438-447. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Transportation and society. A. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. A. P. R. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. M. Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. Amsterdam: Elsevier.R. 427-433..
S.. 135-154). 207-219. and French. M.  West. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. (1961). M.J. S. 324.S. G. (ed.). Snow.W. G. J. G. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. 84. 34. Advances in Paediatrics. G. Accident Prevention.  Wilde. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts.J. American Journal of Psychiatry. M. R. In Halsey. G. Dunaway. (2005). (1993). Toronto: PDE Publications. S. Mild social deviance. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . 1149-1152. Ceminsky. G. Target Risk.J. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers.. (1994).  Wilde. Childhood accidents. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health.  Wheatley. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk.J.S. 130(4). G. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production.L. K. Fox. Preventions of accidents in childhood. University of Waterloo Press. (2007).  Wilde.J. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 209-225. 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. 271278. 450-455. G. Hallberg. (2002). R. 1116-1121. Ergonomics. E.  Wells-Parker.  Wilde. and Klerman. D..) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. and Anderson. 441-468. Guiling. (Ed. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (2002). In Yager.N. B.S. J. P.  Wilde. 195. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. British Journal of Psychology.M (1956).. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries.M. 2. Risk Analysis.S. G. (1982). Wiliams.. G. (1973).J. (1988).S. (1984). Elander. 31. (pp. Weissman. 15(11/12).  Wheatley.  Wilde. 8..  Wells..
34(5). The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway.  Wilson. A. Welsh.R.K. Gavin. 2007 from http:www. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.  Williamson. V. (1994).. Wood.F. and Hartman. 8. 1. (2003). 110-131.) Contemporary Ergonomics. 31. S.  Wood. Retrieved March 31.. L. New York: Taylor & Francis. N. J. (2004). Farmington Hills MI: Gale. and Boyd. A.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. and Shabanova.C.S.. Applied Ergonomics. and Well. M. Cascardi. Psychological Assessment. J. M. Campo Grande. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Williams..  Williams. 26(6). (2000). March 20-22. 303346. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. by age and gender. (2003). Lenard. (Ed. T. A.F.B. 99-109. 557-567.ictct.G. Countries and Their Cultures. D. (2001). Mastering the World of Psychology.A.I.Y.J.G. M.  Williams.  Williams. E. Responsibility of drivers. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. J. S. (1999). J. and Poythress. T. T. International Social Science Journal.E. for motor-vehicle crash deaths. Boston: Pearson.  Woodcock.  Williamson. (1996). Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues. 807-811. Flyte and Garner. (2008). 6(2). 527-531. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. Journal of Safety Research. In Hanson. Brazil. Matto Grosso do Sul. Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. 398-403. 285 . Space and Culture. Boyd. A. Driver experience with antilock brake systems.. N.Workshop. 55(175). (2003)..
Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. Report of an Advisory Group.  Zikovitz. 740-746. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. In Underwood. and Harris. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society. 286 . 487-503). 1314-1330. M.A. and Chaffin. Country reports. S.R. (2000). Technical Report Series No. Ergonomics. 33(3). World Health Organization [WHO] (1957). Geneva. G. 43(9). D. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young. Islam. . (2005).) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). D. (2007). X. 50(1). 46-58.  Yergil. N. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. and Stanton. (1999). L. A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. Ergonomics. 118. D. (2005).S. 473-485. 42(5).  Yaapar.C. Asian Journal of Social Science.  Zhang. (Ed. Ergonomics. theatre and tourism. Head tilt during driving. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research.
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. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. ABS ensures that. Immediately after releasing the pressure. on most surface types. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. presumably because of personality factors. As a result. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. or benefits. allowing the wheel to turn. the brake line pressure is relates. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences. (see also. 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. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. differential accident involvement). the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. to the individual” (Brown & 287 . drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems.
The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. (see also. where possible. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. proximal variable. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis. p. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. it refers to a combination of circumstances. The central idea is that. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. including driver behaviour. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. characteristics of road users. McKenna of the University of Reading. time of week and. risk homeostasis theory. road and traffic conditions. (see also. rather than a theory. It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. Also referred to as risk compensation. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. In the present research.Noy. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. where effort to save lives may be concentrated. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. 2004. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. (see also. 25). 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. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. 288 . (see also. distal variable. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. task capability theory) .
intelligence. self-concept. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. not as a unidimensional. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology.. Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. leading to the now largely discredited concept of accident proneness. It contains detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes on public roadways in the United States since 1975. in-crash. Department of Transportation. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. William Haddon Jr. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. interests. 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. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other. values. motivation. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. (see also. ability. 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). 289 .Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. In traffic psychology. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. (see also. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931.S. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. selfefficacy and self-esteem. aptitudes. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Rotter of the University of Connecticut. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. 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. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human.
Included in this term are walking. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. most usually on roads. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. Private speech: see self-talk. trucks (lorries). individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. 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. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. That is. motorised bicycles. mobile construction equipment or platforms. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. 333-334). For the purposes of the present research. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. motor vehicles included automobiles. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour. including life goals” (Chaplin. motorcycles. 1985. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. p. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. the individual differences approach. For the purposes of the present research. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. Wilde. and buses. bicycling. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . the ego and the superego. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation.S. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. 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”. conversely.
Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. signage. including the network. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. p. parking spaces. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. draining system. 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. tunnels. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. behavioural adaptation. target risk. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. the vehicle and the road) interact with each other. Road traffic system: Road traffic may be considered as a system in which three components (the human.” (Ogden. archways and footpaths. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. bridges. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. at both conscious and unconscious levels. (see also. 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.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. overpasses. Road safety engineering: “a process. stopping places. Within the context of this research. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. but only 291 . and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. 1996. as the result of injury sustained in the crash.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. 35). (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind.
and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. remains constant at the target level. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. theory of reasoned action. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). 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. According to RHT proponents. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (see also. (see also. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. According to Wilde (1994).when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . (see also. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. behaviour control) (see also. and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. On dry roads. which are the best predictors of behaviour. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits 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. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. 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.
It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. road engineering. In the present research. management science and economics. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. from its outset. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. ergonomics. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. that share the same road infrastructure. adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. (see also. 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. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. behavioural adaptation. motorised and non-motorised. comfort. The five basic transportation factors include: safety.Traffic management: planning. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. convenience and economy. coordinating. community planning. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . time.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles.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.com/portal/page?_pageid=53. 1993).A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed. Beck & Steer. Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu. 19500 Bulverde Road.html 295 . Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Brace & Company).edu/~csp/csp. with the understanding that they would not be re-published. 2000). 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. Papacostas & Synodinos. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ.com/cgibin/MsmGo.S.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. CA 90025 USA http://portal. San Antonio. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt. C.hawaii. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.eng. Buss & Warren.wpspublish.
Kansas 66045 USA www. 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. Crowson.ukans.R. Snyder. Houston. C.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT.edu/hope. Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr.psych. Snyder. 296 .
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
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 . In what city/town did you learn to drive? _______________. _________. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________.g. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF. 1.what manufacturer & model (e. Most of the time when you travel. We are not asking for your name. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3.g. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. _________.. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. please answer the following questions: 2. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes.
When you want to use a motorcycle. all 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 . 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 9.8. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. all the time ___ yes. Within the last twelve (12) months. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to be hospitalised for injuries? yes no If yes. most of the time ___ no 10. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. When you want to use a car. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. most of the time ___ no 11.
in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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 . sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. Within the last twelve months. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. but no injuries? If yes. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.12. What is your gender? 16. 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. 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.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.