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Several researchers at other institutions have provided assistance in the form of test instruments, unpublished papers and guidance over the course of this project.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.
some personality constructs. hopelessness.ABSTRACT Motor vehicle crashes are a serious social and economic problem in Malaysia. demographic characteristics and driving exposure in predicting crash and injury occurrence. and that driver behaviours. gender and ethnicity) and psychological (locus of control. on average. where. respectively). demographic (age. seven fatalities are recorded each day. Three samples of university students whose primary mode of transportation involved driving automobiles (n = 301. However. externally-focused frustration. 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. 302 and 252. A contextual mediated model was used to examine interactions between a set of variables considered distal to the causality of the crash event. and destination-activity orientation. driving experience and demographic characteristics are the specific contributors of these factors. Previous research has found that human factors play the chief role in contributing to crash outcomes. freeway urgency. Effects of the distal variables and proximal variable on self-reported history of crash occurrence and injuries were examined. vii . previous attempts to investigate relationships between psycho-social variables and crash incidence have frequently yielded weak associations and inconclusive results. The role of the proximal variable in mediating distal effects on crash outcomes was also investigated. self-reported patterns of driving considered more proximal to the causality of the crash and self-reported crash and injury histories of the participants. The 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). BIT had four components: usurpation of right-of-way. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) characteristics. The present research was conducted to examine the interaction between the role of behaviour in traffic. personality traits. Distal variables included driver (driving experience and driving frequency).
Results indicated a complex series of interactions between the variables. Two types of hostile automatic thoughts – with content related to physical aggression or revenge – moderated the BITaggression relationship. as well. As hypothesised. particularly with respect to an ongoing debate within traffic psychology over the comparative importance of theories or models of driving behaviour. BIT. 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. The advantages of multi-disciplinary approaches to the study of roadway crashes are discussed. all four BIT components were associated with higher occurrence of both self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injury. Implications for both theory and practice are discussed. The role of the proximal variable. As reported in previous studies. Among distal variables. BIT exerted a strong mediational influence over the effects of distal variables on crash outcomes. Areas for further study include the role of locus of control and other distal variables in the behavioural adaptation process at the root of most risk and task interface capability theories and applications to driver selection and training procedures. 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. Results indicated that. consistent with the assumptions of the contextual mediated model. locus of control moderated the BIT-aggression relationship. viii .
2.3 ix .6 Background of the Study Road Safety in Malaysia The Problem Statement The Professional Significance of the Study Overview of the Methodology Delimitations ii iii iv vi vii ix xv xviii xx 1 1 2 4 5 7 9 12 12 12 17 19 19 21 21 22 24 24 25 26 28 30 31 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes The Professional Background 2.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia 2.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) 2.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach Theories of Driving Behaviour 2.2 Differential Accident Involvement 184.108.40.206 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2.5 1.4.1 Accident Proneness 2. Theories and Models 2.3.2 220.127.116.11.2 1.2.3 The Individual Differences Approach 18.104.22.168 1.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building 2.1 Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality 22.214.171.124 Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge 2.1 Concepts.1 An Applied Perspective 2.4 Risk Theories 126.96.36.199 1.3.1 1.TABLE OF CONTENTS COPYRIGHT PAGE DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.2.3.
2.3 Psychological Variables 2.2 Demographic Variables: Age.2.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioral Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model 2.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour 2.5.5 2.3 Aggression Proximal Variables in the Present Research 2.3.5 Hierarchical Theories of Driver Adaptation 2.1 Age 188.8.131.52.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Distal Variables in the Present Study 2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour 2.3 Ethnicity 2.1 Statistical Models 2.2 Conceptualization and the Research Framework Definition of the Variables 3.2 Hopelessness 184.108.40.206.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 22.214.171.124.2.2.1 Locus of Control 2.4.3. Gender and Ethnicity 3.1 Experience 2.2 Gender 2.6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory 126.96.36.199 Zero Risk Theory 188.8.131.52.4.5.2 Process Models 184.108.40.206 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2.1 The Haddon Matrix 220.127.116.11.1 Type A Behaviour Pattern and Motor Vehicle Crashes 2.5.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation 18.104.22.168.3.2.6 22.214.171.124 Locus of Control 3.5 Aggression 78 78 84 84 84 84 85 85 x .5.2.1 Driver Characteristics: Driver Experience and Driving Frequency 3.4 Hopelessness 3.1 3.2.1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs 2.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity 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 126.96.36.199.188.8.131.52.5.2 Driver Characteristics 2.1 Demographic Variables 2.4 2.3.3.
3.3 Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) 3.5.6 3.2 Study 1B 3.7 184.108.40.206.7.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale 220.127.116.11 The Sample 3.1 Study 1A 3.7.4 Normed Fit Index (NFI) 3.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) 18.104.22.168.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale 3.7.3 3.5. p-Value and χ2/df Ratio 3.7.4 3.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) 22.214.171.124 Logistic Regression Analysis 3.2.6 Hostile Automatic Thoughts 126.96.36.199 Chi-Square (χ2).7.2.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) 188.8.131.52.7.2.5 Multiple Regression Analysis 184.108.40.206 Degree of freedom (df) 3.7.2 Research Instruments 3.3 Study 1C 3.5 Study 3 Formulation of Hypotheses Methods of Data Collection and Analysis 3.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) 3.9 Injury Occurrence Research Design of the Studies 3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) 3.2.7 Structural Equation Modelling 3.3.8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test 220.127.116.11 Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) 3.4 Linear Regression Analysis 3.3 The General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Analysis 3.7.4 Study 2 3.3.2 Study 3 Analysis of the Data 3.8 Crash Occurrence 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 .7.1 Independent-sample t-tests 3.3.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Procedure 18.104.22.168.2.5 3.2.1 Studies 1 and 2 3.7.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 22.214.171.124.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 3.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 126.96.36.199.7.
1.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 188.8.131.52. Gender and Ethnicity 4.6.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.8 Hypothesis 8: Locus of control Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes 4.15 Hypothesis 15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Moderate the 112 112 112 114 115 115 116 116 118 118 119 120 120 121 122 124 126 126 130 132 134 134 135 139 140 142 143 143 145 147 149 151 153 153 154 156 157 4.3. Skewness and Kurtosis Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Distal and Proximal Variable Data 184.108.40.206.4 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 3 Reliability and Validity 4.2 4.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of control Influences Hopelessness 220.127.116.11.1 Reliability Test Results: Cronbach’s Alpha 18.104.22.168.2.3.6.CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.6.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control 4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the AQ Scale 4.12.3 4.3 Results of Study 3 Hypothesis Testing 22.214.171.124 Age.5 4.3 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 2 4.3 Validity Test Results 126.96.36.199.4 4.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 Results of Study 2 4.6.2 Parallel-Form Reliability 4.1 Description of the Sample 4.2 Hypothesis 2: Driver Characteristics Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.1 Internality as a Moderator 4.6 xii .6.1 Results of Study 1 4.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale 4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Demographic Variables Influence Behaviour in Traffic 4.5.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic 4.2.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness 4.13 Hypothesis 13: Demographic Factors Influence Hostile Automatic Thoughts 4.5.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale Normality.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour In Traffic 4.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression 4.6.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic 4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale 4.6.2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators 188.8.131.52.
8.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes 184.108.40.206.1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle 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 5.5.6 xiii .4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model 5.7 4.5.2 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Indian-Malaysian Drivers 5.3 Study 3 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS 4.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.5.1 5.3.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes Comparison of Automobile Drivers.3 Best Fit or Best Model 5.2 Goodness of Fit 5.6.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists 220.127.116.11.3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome 4.3 Timeframe for Data Collection 179 182 185 185 187 189 190 194 194 196 197 201 201 202 203 203 204 204 210 211 5.6.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity: Malay and Chinese-Malaysian Drivers Aggression Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 18.104.22.168 Study 2 4.5 5.9.2 Use of Self-Report Methods 5.8.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers 5. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4.3.1 Study 1C 22.214.171.124.5.3.2 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes 4.1 Advantages of Using SEM 5.1 Internal and External Locus of Control as Determinants of Driving Behaviour 5.4 5.9 Relationship Between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.6.2 5.1 Study 1C: Automobile Drivers 5.1 Generalisability of Findings 5.16 Summary of Hypothesis Tests Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (LISREL Analysis) 4.8 4.5.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? Limitations of the Study and Methodological Considerations 126.96.36.199.3 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Hopelessness Locus of Control 5.8.
3 Education 188.8.131.52 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions 184.108.40.206.5.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency Implications and Areas for Further Study 5.7. Training and Rehabilitation 5.4 Enforcement 212 215 215 218 220 221 221 221 229 230 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 233 REFERENCES GLOSSARY APPENDICES Appendix A List of Published and Research Scales Appendix B Personal Information (PIF) 237 287 294 297 xiv .7.1 Theory vs.3 Driver Selection.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.7.2 Factors in Behavioural Adaptation (BA) 220.127.116.11.7 5.7.2 Engineering Interventions 5.4. Models in Traffic Psychology 5.
Table Page 2.7 4. Gender and Ethnicity of Participants in Studies 1. 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.6 4.3 114 4.2 Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.5 4.1 2.3 3.9 4.2 3.1 4.LIST OF TABLES No.1 3.10 4.11 xv . 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.4 115 117 118 119 4.3 3.2 4.8 111 121 121 122 4.5 4.4 3. Kurtosis and Skewness Statistics 13 14 57 91 95 97 98 101 112 114 2.
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) 124 125 Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Means.20 134 4. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) 125 Means.22 136 4.15 Crash and Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence Frequency. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Means.12 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1A (n=301) Means.13 4.17 129 4.21 135 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Injury Occurrence The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1A (N=301) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1B (N=302) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 1C (N=252) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 2 (N=122) The Influence of Driver Characteristics on Total BIT Scores in Study 3 (N=133) Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores 127 4.19 133 4.24 137 4. Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 2 (n=122) Means.23 136 4.16 128 4.28 4.27 4.14 4.26 138 139 144 145 4.25 138 4.18 131 4.4.29 xvi .
2 5.4 208 5.41 175 5.4.30 4.33 4.32 4.37 4.3 5.36 4.39 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 4.38 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 4.6 xvii .35 4.1 199 206 207 5.5 209 225 5.31 4.
8 Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe.10 64 80 81 82 83 146 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 3.5 Figure Task Cube (from Summala.4 148 xviii .LIST OF FIGURES No.3 2.7 2. 2003) Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Models Page 36 37 40 42 44 46 47 2. 2007) 50 Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behavior (after Keskinen.4 2. Hatakka. 2000) Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.1 3.3 4.2 3.4 4.6 2. Behavioral Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.1 2.2 147 148 4. 1997) Contextual Mediated Model of Personality.1 4. 1996) Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. 1996. 1989) The Haddon Matrix (Noy. 2.9 59 2.2 2.
10 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.11 Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C5 Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 153 154 155 158 165 166 168 170 172 4.13 xix .5 4.8 4.12 4.4.
I despair that we may never be able to snare this werewolf. I’m a fairly big guy. She started crying and couldn’t stop. She told me about the motorcycle crash that had claimed the life of her cousin. Then one evening into my office came a student from my first-year Critical Thinking class. How important these factors are. I told her not to worry.Talib Rothengatter & Raphael Huguenin. or wouldn’t. at least not with real tears. just every so often. like encounters with fairies and werewolves. But sometimes. LISREL couldn’t. and this thesis is the result. He’d sent me a nice card at Christmas. The behaviour of the traveller. I didn’t recognise her at first. I feel like it each time I think of that moment. He was driving. He died instantly and she spent three weeks in the hospital. they were focused on the errand. I’m pretty happy with it. are factors that influence the likelihood of occurrence. Her face and arms had been bruised and lacerated. only a trimester or two earlier. I sure felt like it as I sat there beside her. they cut across a lane too quickly. I don’t cry much any more. They were hurrying. I got back to work on them. lane deviation and all the rest.D. I knew the fellow. She had been badly injured. She was afraid she had missed too many lectures. she was riding pillion. Her hands and voice quivered. to the weary traveler. programme. He didn’t want to go.PREFACE Accidents occur. finally. 2004 Some three years or so into my Ph. I was confused by the results I was getting. She had needed to go on an errand. things were not going well. My research design needed a serious re-working. I hope it makes a contribution. is a matter of debate … Obviously. handle the latent variables I wanted to include in my structural equation model. They quarreled and then left on his motorbike. they are prone to other types of error as well. externally-focused frustration. And they crashed. but accidents or encounters with fairies or werewolves are random events. he’d taken the same course as she. but she’d nagged him. when humans are prone to imagine fairies or werewolves. But. The factors she described that evening were the same ones I’d been trying to study – freeway urgency. I feel like it a bit right now. He was very popular with other students. they were frustrated and angry with each other. I wanted to throw in the towel. . I like to watch boxing. xx . and his mental state.
cognitive (Vaa. 2000. for instance. 2004). 2000). 2004).. Iwasaki. 2000). 1999). such as Malaysia. road. kinaesthetic (Zhang & Chaffin. Green. Drivers’ performance and avoidance of collisions depend on their skills. where rates of roadway accidents and deaths have been consistently higher than in other parts of the world (Peden & Hyder. 1996. 2007. scholars still search to identify the relative effects of vehicle. Trick. 2002).. Scurfield. Sleet. Peters & Peters. Consistently over the years. Drivers’ attentional (Most & Astur. highway engineers and automotive design specialists. much of the recent attention on causal elements in roadway crashes has focused on the human factors involved. perceptual-motor processes (Young & Stanton. Sabey (1999). 2002) and road safety engineering (e. state of mind and physical well-being. judgement. 2001).2 million deaths in motor vehicle crashes worldwide (Peden. Ogden. Notwithstanding the extensive literature that exists on safety design factors for automotive products (e. environment and human characteristics on the risk of accidental events and fatalities. perceptual difficulties and drink driving” (p. 2007. “human factors play a major role in road accidents. Enns. leading to a rich information base for regarding humancentred design as a “requirement for all elements in the traffic system.1 Background of the Study With an estimated 1.g. Mohan & Hyder. 2006. Furuichi & Kadoma. 11). commented that. Stanton & Pinto. policy-makers. 2002. 2001. Mills & Vavrik. 2004) have been studied extensively. Even after decades of study. 2002) and their impairment (de Raedt & Ponjaert-Kristofferson.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.g. Theeuwes. perceptual (Hong. including the 1 . This is particularly salient in developing countries. Verwey. Graham. anticipation. the most prevalent factors have been human failures associated with speed. Olson. the quest for a better understanding of the causality and prevention of roadway mishaps has become an urgent task for safety researchers.
According to Dewar (2002b).112).roadway. 1983).252 accidents in 2006 and over 6. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. concludes by noting the delimitations of the research. 2002.351. The research comprised five separate studies of Malaysian drivers aged 18 to 73 years. as a “social menace”(Abdul Kareem. 2005). p. 1949) have since been replaced by more complex explanations that focus on the interaction between emotional. This dissertation is a report of research into relevant psychosocial variables and their effects on self-reported driving behaviour. Very early initial attempts to identify an “accident proneness” personality trait (Tiliman & Hobbs. More challenging has been the attempt to link personality and psychosocial variables to driver behaviour and performance. locus of control.2 Road Safety in Malaysia Malaysia is a nation of motor vehicle users. the vehicle and the new technologies that are increasingly being deployed by the road and fitted in vehicles” (Carsten. The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in both scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. McKenna. 2 . There was a total of 341.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. behavioural and attitudinal characteristics of drivers and the environmental situations in which they find themselves (Haight. 2003). A total of 10. there are conflicting findings and associated problems with this research” (p. hopelessness and other variables interacted to affect attitudes toward driving and the severity and frequency of participants’ self-reported involvement in motor vehicle crashes. describes its significance and presents an overview of the methodology used. However.790. 1989). The chapter 1. “the literature on personality has a long history. This first chapter of this dissertation presents the background of the study. 21).732 motor vehicles were registered in 2006. including the study of a large number of variables. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. 2004.332 drivers and 15. Malaysia is also a nation with a disproportionately high frequency of motor vehicle accidents. with the intent to determine the degree to which measures of aggression. 2007).
Parada & Cortes. attitudinal and personality correlates of roadtraffic crash risk. Barrett & Alexander. Blasco. 2002. 2002b. Wells. Cohn. and the past twenty years has seen the emergence of the new discipline of traffic and transport psychology (Barjonet & Tortosa. West & French. 1993. Gidron. there has been an increasing recognition of the need for theoretical formulations and specific models. 1999. 2005). 2004). Renner & Anderle. 1994. Stewart. 2006. risk-taking and sensation-seeking (Horswill & Coster. Dewar. Huang. Loo. ethno-cultural background (Byrd. 1997). Schwebel. 1991. Lin. Verwey. aggression (Parkinson. 3). 2002. Historically. 2001. easily generalised to a variety of cultural and social settings. 2004. 2000). Hence. 2004. that allow for better prediction and explanation of roadway crashes (Risser & Nickel. 3 . Sumala & Zakowska. 2003). Elander. 2005. Gal & Syna Desevilya. locus of control (Arthur. Vasconcellos. 2007). 1997. 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. 2001. Severson. Hwang. Huguenin (2005) has argued that the field of traffic psychology arises from an “interdisciplinary. often with widely varying results (Dewar. 2001). 1997). Barjonet & Tortosa. Lajunen & Summala. Özkan. 1979. Ball & Rizzon. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. 1997). Ulleberg.Trends toward high rates of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities have been observed in developing countries world-wide (Peden et al. 2002. 2002) and many others. leading many researchers and safety organisations to regard road safety as a leading international development issue (Garg & Hyder. 2000. Draskóczy. and (b) the elimination or reduction of effects of task-induced or environmental stressors on human performance when driving (Brown. Gonzalez. Shinar. Many studies have been devoted to the examination of behavioural. Investigations of individual differences have included driver age and gender (Beck. 1997). Lajunen & Kaistinen. Wells-Parker et al. Rimmö. 2006. Wu & Yen. Hartos & Simons-Martin. 2005.
Increasingly. drivers still operate automobiles and motorcycles in ways that reduce the likelihood of safe arrival at destinations.e.3 The Problem Statement Given widespread awareness about the high rates of death and injury resulting from motor vehicle crashes worldwide and in Malaysia. in developing general and specific cognitive models of individuals’ interaction with the world around them (Brown.. 1997). with resulting outcomes often involving crash and injury. has recently proposed a promising contextual mediated model which distinguishes between distal (i. for instance. road and environmental conditions that comprise the driving situation.e. Richardson and Downe (2000) and others have argued that there is a need to take into consideration the myriad of interactions between driver characteristics and the driving context and even between driver psychological variables themselves. What demographic and personality factors are associated and interact with unsafe driving behaviour and. personality and demographic) and proximal (i. loss of attention and the deliberate usurpation of right-of-way are frequent behaviours in traffic. with the risk of roadway casualty? 4 . Noy (1997). aberrant driving behaviours) variables in predicting traffic accident involvement. 2004). Sümer (2003). however. This has led to a growing interest in modelling human behaviour involved in the driving task and. vehicle. 2005). leaving the field with inadequate theory development from which testable. Parker. 1996. Speeding. has been that such behavioural models have seldom been used as the foundation for developing an integrated. externally-focused frustration. falsifiable hypotheses might be drawn (Summala. 1.. in turn. Hampson & Morris. theoretical basis for traffic psychology (Huguenin. in particular. 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. it has been recognised that the psychosocial factors involved in driving safely differ greatly across the range of human. 1997. A frequent criticism.
(b) driving experience. Results of the resulting analyses are detailed in chapter 3.The aim of the present research is to determine those factors contributing to traffic accidents on Malaysia roadways. injuries and deaths. p. psychological and behavioural variables inherent in the dynamics leading motor vehicle crashes. this research is important to organisations and people concerned with driving safety. it becomes possible to construct a broader awareness of how demographic and personality variables contribute to motor vehicle crashes. with a view to assessing which preventive measures would be most effective. but also on their interactions. “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. While there is no doubt that collective knowledge pertaining to the causality and prevention of roadway crashes is growing exponentially. (d) driver hopelessness. 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. 9). By better understanding the manner in which psychosocial characteristics of individuals might predispose them to engage in unsafe driving behaviour. 1. the present research might be seen as making a contribution to our growing understanding of that very interface. 5 .4 The Professional Significance of the Study With the frequency of roadway crashes. in which distal psychosocial factors exert an influence on behavioural tendencies more proximally related to the crash event. and (f) drivers’ hostile automatic thoughts would not only affect each other but also four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic. 2005. gender and ethnicity. By focusing on not only demographic. (c) driver locus of control. Fifteen hypotheses are formulated to predict that distal variables including: (a) driver age. (e) driver aggression. This is both a key goal and a persistent challenge within the emerging field of traffic psychology. 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. situated as proximal variables.
Findings of the present research have implications for driver selection and training. Näätänen & Summala. 1974). Despite considerable popular attention to the problem of motor vehicle crashes and fatalities in the developing countries of Southeast Asia. 2001. the Malaysian setting has remained relatively understudied (Richardson & Downe. Some authors have suggested that. the development and adaptation of in-vehicle safety devices or intelligent transportation systems and the construction of models to foster additional research. 2000). 1997). Recent trends in the philosophy of science call conventional hypothetico-deductive processes into question (Becker.Of particular interest may be variables related to driver affect. 2005. Laapotti. 2004. Hatakka. It is also the first attempt to examine closely the effects of the psychological construct of hopelessness on driver behaviour. the plethora of theories available. “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. p. The present research adds to the growing body of literature dealing with driver aggression and its various forms of expression. 1993). 94). an area that some authors have argued is overlooked in the current literature (Keskinen. 2004. 2004). road safety measures and public policy. they also have implications for a broader “theory versus model” debate in traffic psychology. There is a growing sentiment that. Rothengatter. in the applied sciences. all of which have been noted as purposes for traffic psychology (Brown & Noy. 6 . 1997. 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. Utzelmann. Moreover. 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. Katila & Peräaho.
It is useful. may be limiting the development of effective public policy and intervention measures. 2001). and on the manner in which those factors interact to affect safety outcomes on the roadway. human motivation. Selection of alternate structural equation models is also discussed. and is appropriate for this examination of psychosocial features of the Malaysian driver. attitude theory. In doing so. 2005) and attempts to link driver performance to road engineering (e. with emphasis on the importance of model comprehensiveness as a factor in addition to goodness-of-fit. Radin Umar. this research draws on principles from a wide range of disciplines. in turn. 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. goes some distance in differentiating the present study from other more narrowly-defined examinations of driver behaviour. incorporating cognitive ergonomics. this work represents the first instance in which Baron & Kenny’s (1986) widely-cited procedure for establishing mediation has been performed using logistic regression.Notwithstanding a handful of well-founded reviews of statistical trends and risk factors (e. which deals with methodology. cultural anthropology and applied psychology. very little research has been focused on the psychological and social features of the motoring population in Malaysia.. 7 . Certain methodological considerations add to the professional significance of this research. 2001). although adding additional layers of variables and complexity to the analysis. This has left the door open for largely unsupported speculation about the character of Malaysian drivers and.g. This broader perspective. To the author’s knowledge. Che Ali.. 1.5 Overview of the Methodology Questions about how the study was conducted and the choice of research methods are answered fully in chapter 3. A multi-disciplinary approach has been generally considered one of the hallmarks of the new field of traffic psychology (Rothengatter.g.
externally-focused frustration. Black. In Study 1. aggression. This model drew on the similar conceptual theory used by Sümer (2003) in the construction of his earlier contextualmediated model. in their capacity to explain which specific predictors 8 . hopelessness. freeway urgency. The present research consisted of three studies: Study 1. gender. at the conclusion of Study 1C. destination-oriented activity) and two self-reported measures of accidentrelated (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) outcomes were assessed. cultural background). driving experience. 1B and 1C). each entailing data collection from a different sample. The final result. Study 2 and Study 3. second. moderating and mediating relationships between variables. These equations depict all of the relationships among constructs (the dependent and independent variables) involved in the analysis” (Hair. Babin. but where differences which already existed between subject groups on independent measures were evaluated to determine their naturally-occurring influence on dependent. Structural equation modelling is a family of statistical methods that “examines the structure of interrelationships expressed in a series of equations. or outcome. to include in this first chapter a general statement of the method used in order to round out the introductory picture presented. three separate phases were carried out (Study 1A. the effects of selected demographic (age. 711). in their capacity to predict outcomes and. driving (experience. 2006. similar to a series of multiple regression equations. in which there was no direct manipulation of independent variables in the laboratory or field setting. Anderson & Tatham. different combinations of variables were added to the respective structured equation model and the level of complexity was examined. p. The present research applied an ex post facto research design. was a multi-dimensional path analysis depicting causal. In each successive study. Structural equation models were also used to explain the relationships between these variables. Maruyama (1998) has argued that the two prominent reasons why researchers use structural equation modelling techniques lie. In this case. variables (Sekaran. first. access to vehicle) and psychological (locus of control. 2003).however. hostile automatic thoughts) on four self-reported measures of behaviour in traffic (usurpation of right-of-way.
two additional studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were undertaken to test the resilience of selected components of the resulting structural equation model with different driver populations. These are discussed in detail in chapter 5 of the thesis but relevant issues are introduced here.are most important in predicting. with resulting variable relationships compared to the model that had been built from the responses of automobile users in Study 1. After the initial model-building had been completed. Student participants sampled for two of the three studies were selected from an undergraduate population at a single university. This issue is discussed at some length in chapter 5 of the thesis. where it is argued that the “convenience sample” used in the model-building phases was. representative of the characteristics of high-risk Malaysian drivers. In Study 2.6 Delimitations All research is confined by the boundaries of its scope and design. Generalisability of the present study may be constrained by the single-setting of the subject pool and the limitations of the particular methods selected. a model was constructed using a sample of undergraduate participants for whom motorcycles were the primary mode of transport. a third model was constructed. in fact. 9 . over the course of 30. verbally administered psychometric instruments. data were collected through classroom-based group administration of research instruments. leaving room for questions about the generalisability of findings to populations within and outside Malaysia.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. 1. A team of researchers flagged down taxi drivers at random and. behavioural inventories and personal profile questionnaires. In Study 3. Again. this time sampling professional taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area.
Keskinen. 2002. Boyce & Geller. Lapses involve problems with attention and memory and include such things as switching on one thing when meaning to switch on something else.Concerns with research of this nature also frequently centre around the question of self-reported data. Katila & Laapotti. The present research included procedural elements to mitigate. However. lapses and violations as differing behavioural responses underlying the crash event (Reason. and (c) culpability for crash outcomes. (b) time-period for calculating accident frequency. much of the recent driving safety literature has distinguished between errors. Finally. there has been a vigorous debate about the utility of self-report measures in safety research for several years. along with its implications for the validity of results and potential alternative methodologies. close following or taking aggressive actions against another driver or vehicle. Baxter & Campbell. social desirability or response set biases? Indeed. accident histories and behavioural trends reported by participants really valid? Or are they prone to the influences of confabulation. at least to a certain extent. In a meta-review of traffic safety research. The present research. Errors are a type of driving mistake involving failures of observation and misjudgement. Manstead. is discussed in chapter 5 of the thesis. 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. 2001) and others down-playing them (Hattaka. 1990). Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed to be necessary to safely operate a vehicle and include such behaviours as speeding. as well. against the first two and these are covered in chapter 2. 1997). including: (a) test-retest reliability of predictors. with some authors emphasizing methodological risks (af Wählberg. af Wählberg (2003) outlined three significant methodological deficiencies that have plagued the study of traffic accident predictors. The prevalence of self-report measures in traffic safety research. The relationship between the manner 10 . while recognising the distinction. Stradling. such as failing to check the rear-view mirror before pulling out or changing lanes. did not specifically compare these driving patterns within the context of participants’ self-reported behaviour in traffic.
in which behaviour in traffic was measured in this research and the dimensions offered by Reason et al is discussed in chapter 5. 11 .
the Minister of Health characterised Malaysian roads as “worse than a war zone”. “bullies” and “selfish”. “obnoxious” and “cowardly” (“Cowardly Malaysian Drivers”.1 2. Over 6. A succession of online weblogs and internet sites authored by tourists and local writers alike have condemned Malaysian drivers as dangerous. or as “negligent” (“Malaysia Records Highest Single-Day Death Toll”.000 fatalities were recorded (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. but when asked to “describe what Malaysian drivers are like”. Downe and Loke (2004) reported that.1.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2. to a rapid increase 12 . Malaysia has experienced remarkable increases in population. 2007). 1989). Recently. 2005). The high rate of roadway accidents and deaths has been described in scholarly and popular print or internet media in extreme terms. The public image of driving in Malaysia – and the generally negative reputation of the driving community – suggests that roadway safety has emerged as a significant national problem. pointing out that annual fatalities exceed the total deaths among American combat personnel over four years of fighting in Iraq (Zolkepli. inconsiderate and aggressive. A developing country in Southeast Asia.1 Human Factors and the Motor Vehicle Safety Problem in Malaysia Roadway Crashes in Malaysia and Public Perceptions of Causality In 2006. in order of frequency. “reckless”. “selfish” (“Our Roads are Filled”. they indicated “angry”. and as a “major public health problem” (Subramaniam. Nation-wide statistics seem to underscore the popular concern over safety issues. “patient”. often labelled as “tragic” (Koh. “laid-back” and “considerate”. industrialisation and motorisation. 2007). there were 341. 2007). “friendly”. 2005). a sample of 348 first-year university students indicated. These are thought to have contributed. as a social “menace”(Abdul Kareem. “ugly motorists” (“Rude Drivers”. 2005). “discourteous” (Davin Arul. in aggregate. “impatient”.252 motor vehicle accidents in Malaysia. economic expansion. Malaysian drivers have been consistently characterized as “confrontational”. 2007). 2003). In newspaper reports. 2006). when asked to provide five adjectives which would “describe what Malaysians are like”. “peaceful”.
2007).552 37.815 2005 328.741 38.891 8. The number of road fatalities has decreased slightly from 6. Mohd Zulkiflee. the number of crashes has increased 80% over the past ten years.200 9.2). Studies 13 . one- third of all crashes in Malaysia involve automobile users or motorcyclists within the 16.395 2006 6.287 9.in the number of road traffic crashes (Abdul Kareem. in Malaysia. In Malaysia.012 19.228 9.287 in 2006. 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.417 47.304 in 1994 to 6.109 in 1996 to a total of 341.7111 2003 298.885 35.264 2006 341.000 vehicles (Law. but still lags behind frequencies in developed countries which generally fall below 3 deaths per 10. This suggests that studies. higher than any other age grouping or combination of consecutive age groupings.252 Motor Vehicle Casualties 2002 Fatalities Severe Injuries Minor Injuries Total 35.040 2004 6.to 25-year-old age group (see table 2.286 9. Subramaniam & Law. 2002-2006 Motor Vehicle Crashes 2002 Total 279. Abdul Rahman.425 5. Generally. 2005). Table 2. 2003.253 source: Royal Malaysian Police (2007) The road accident death rate in Malaysia dropped from 8.1: Malaysian Roadway Crashes and Casualties.252 in 2006 (Ministry of Transport Malaysia. 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.236 49.98 deaths per 10. Radin Umar. Table 2.645 54.425 2003 6. 2005).091 37.000 vehicles in 2006.1 summarises the five-year incidence of crashes and injuries.218 2005 6.20 deaths per 10.415 52. from 189. & Wong. 2005).653 2004 326.000 vehicles in 1996 to 3.
967 100 19.329 100 source:Royal Malaysian Police (2000.81 2.803 9.2: Numbers of Automobile Drivers and Motorcyclists Involved in Road Crashes by Age Group 2000 2001 2002 2003 Number % Number % Number % Number % 37 0.47 280 1.90 159 0. or an average of RM4. 2001.41 302 1.921 100 20.049 15.45 30 0. or about 2.05 1.08 585 2. It has been reported that.68 128 0.76 22.29 708 3.15 43 0.94 1.05 2.81 3.99 164 0.49 450 2.67 206 0.85 147 0.94 625 3. 14 . 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.469 15.7 billion. Some Ministry of Health estimates of medical costs alone have been as high as RM5.709 8.06 608 3. 2002.56 3.086 9.91 984 4. 2001).65 121 0.4 billion to RM5. 2006).07 2.94 2.05 2.341 12.85 2.997 14. Recent international analyses have placed the total economic burden at around RM7 billion yearly.180 10.48 105 0.11 2.54 708 3.178 15.448 17.71 543 2. with one road accident victim admitted to hospital every six minutes (Bernama.29 2.309 10.023 5.08 1. general insurers paid RM1. 2003).08 541 2.68 3.23 2.025 9.4% of the Gross Domestic Product (Asian Development Bank.of university-aged drivers are critical to understanding behavioural and situational factors that predict the most commonly occurring class of crashes (Stevenson.416 6. 2005).389 6.40 1. Morrison & Ryan.31 3.77 3.92 1.205 11.820 13.216 10.61 99 0.80 203 0.72 554 2.37 337 1.84 1. Table 2.551 12.48 323 1.22 150 0.431 7. Palamara.15 3.315 17.038 13.947 10.26 463 2. and particularly among younger drivers.81 1.10 3.418 100 19.6 million a day on motor claims (Abdul Kareem.593 11.67 billion.82 1.16 90 0.97 1.65 2.08 2.378 11.953 17. has resulted in considerable economic loss for the country.27 458 2. in 1999 alone.63 160 0.64 135 0.005 15.620 7.110 10.034 4.50 979 4.15 572 2.21 3.07 2.92 2.
Public interest and political frustration has given rise to extensive speculation over the possible causes of the problem. What else can we do. 1999). (Bernama. signs and lighting have been levied in certain quarters 15 . 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. The economic consequences can be estimated. But it is nothing compared to bringing down the number of road deaths. Some seven years later. In spite of numerous road safety campaigns the number of accident cases have been increasing. which is actually a nightmare. Criticisms of road configuration. if people want to die? (Lim. physician and journalist has commented that: The human toll is unquantifiable. the same frustration was apparent when his Cabinet successor told a group of assembled journalists that: When I became Transport Minister two-and-a-half years ago I thought the biggest challenge was to build ports and airports. and that alone justifies making concerted efforts to address the issue … The economic costs in property damages are huge. There is no way to A popular measure the grief of those who have lost their loved ones. 2005). The loss of potential income of the dead and maimed in turn dwarfs those medical outlays (Bakri Musa. In 1999. lane definition. or the pain of the maimed. 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.Yet. economic figures and accident statistics provide only partial indications of the impact of the highway safety problem on Malaysian society. but miniscule compared to the expenses of medical care and rehabilitation. 2006). traffic congestion.
Maybe these drivers just never realised how simple it is to avoid accidents (Looi. 2007). They don’t even stop to look left and right or look in the rear view mirror. newspaper columnists. most accounts have come around to commenting on driver demographic and behavioural characteristics as significant factors in motor vehicle crashes (Che Ali. 2001. unlike in other countries. Researchers. 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 . how they think.693 deaths among motorcycle operators and pillion riders. 1997). 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.(Abdul Rahman et al. as compared with 1. The relatively high population of motorcycle riders. 2005). serious injury and death (Per and Al Haji. Who they are. Krishnan & Radin Umar. In 2006. is often mentioned as a factor. 2005). Those countries have had a motoring culture for nearly a century but our road-users are relatively newer to motoring (Sadiq. 2006). In a recent newspaper interview. Generally. 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. 2007). though. They are also bad in giving ample time to others and this is an example of non-defensive driving. the Royal Malaysian Police (2007) reported 3. given greater risks of accident. approximately 45 per cent of all registered vehicles in 2006 (Road Transport Department Malaysia. 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. for instance.215 deaths among motorcar drivers and passengers.
2007) and crash Type And liability (Clarke. risky behaviour (Chang & Yeh. a needed focus in the analysis of programme effects. causal factors underlying crash and injury rates on Malaysian roadways have remained largely understudied. Ahmad Hariza. Musa. due to fewer trips and reduced traffic exposures as a result of slower economic activity. In none of the studies of the MSP. or else on the evaluation of specific safety interventions. Zulkaurnain and Kulanthayan (2005) examined the impact of economic variables on motorcycle-related crashes.general understanding of the causes and potential prevention strategies related to the country’s traffic safety problem. respectively. reasons and social contexts of motorcycle use (Reeder. (2005) also examined the impact of a national motorcycle safety programme (MSP) on crashes and found that it had effected a 25% reduction in the number of motorcycle accidents. Chalmers & Langley. Radin Umar. Bartle & Truman. 17 . 1996). Conducting time-series regression analyses of police data. MSP interventions had been aimed at modifying motorcycle riders’ awareness and attitudes of safety issues related to helmet use. rather than personality factors. conspicuity and excessive speeding. In the same study. since studies in other parts of the world have found that individual differences play a significant role in determining rider training outcomes. perhaps. they reported that the Asian-wide economic recession significantly contributed to a reduction in traffic fatalities. Law. 2. In a separate study. 2007). Radin Umar and Kulanthayan (1999) found that the same MSP had significantly improved motorcycle riders’ perception and understanding of safety issues.1. however. For instance. Law et al. was personality or demographic factors of motorcyclist samples investigated. The research that has been undertaken has tended to focus largely on the contribution of broader economic and social variables. with a 27% and 38% drop in the rate of motorcycle casualties and motorcycle fatalities. injuries and fatalities. Ward. Mohd Nasir. This is.2 Studies of Causal Factors in Malaysian Roadway Crashes Notwithstanding this public outcry.
presented new circumstances because driving in empty space made staying awake a persistent problem … One strategy drivers have pursued to combat the boredom of the expressway is to drive faster … One of the potential challenges for drivers was the emptiness of the roadway itself (pp. resulted in a myriad of problems. Describing the expressway as a “stunning infrastructural achievement” (p. the factor that made the high speeds possible. these conflicting aims of speed and safety seemed to exacerbate them. 121-122). a capacity that makes them distinct as a society” (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. Although the expressway was meant to avoid both traffic and accidents.122). The very monotony of the road surface. 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. road engineers devoted their efforts to creating a public artery in which speed and limited stoppage were design priorities. “many Malaysians claim that as drivers. has linked peninsular communities. 1996). 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. 110). motivated largely by the government’s fear of unregulated public assembly. since 1994. According to Williamson. It has been estimated by expressway management authorities that up to 95% of the crashes occurring along the northsouth artery are due to human error. Williamson’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. 18 . He argued that. generalising to all driving environments and situations. they are accident prone. however. This.
Because at least one driver is involved in every traffic crash. personality characteristics (Elander. driver behaviour (what the driver chooses to do) has much greater influence on safety than driver performance (what the driver can do).2 2.2. Panosch and Bukasa (2004) argued that: Road safety is less a technical but rather a human factors problem. experiential. levels of driving experience and. by far. Christ. roadway engineering has a much greater influence than automotive engineering (p.1 The Professional Background Human Factors in Roadway Crashes: A Vexing Research Challenge Attention to the demographic.2. Among human factors. etc. According to the Commission for Global Road Safety (2006). 62). Human factors are far more important than engineering factors. Åberg. driver experience and skill and the relationship between risk and factors such as speed choice and alcohol consumption” (p. Among engineering factors. bad road conditions. West and French. research worldwide has focused on driver characteristics in an attempt to understand how human factors play into the causes and prevention of roadway accidents (Evans. 1991). 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. This has included the examination of age and gender. “human behaviour makes a direct contribution to crash risk through the extent of knowledge and understanding of traffic systems. personality and behavioural characteristics of drivers has not been exclusive to the Malaysian scene. 784). particularly. the largest opportunities for harm reduction: A clear hierarchy of factors can be specified. but rather 19 . 1993). 1993. Evans (1996) further argued that changes in driver behaviour offer. The majority of accidents are not caused by problems of the vehicle.
and (c) the failure to differentiate between culpable and non-culpable crashes. weak. Dewar (2002b) concluded that conflicting findings have been due largely to poorlycontrolled studies based on limited samples and on failing to control for driving exposure or alcohol use. 641). 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. unclear.by the behaviour of drivers. the individual-centered approach directly focuses on traffic relevant performance and personality aspects. personality and traffic safety have been regarded by many as debatable. 2004) and other contextual variables. empirical findings to date about the relationship between driver characteristics. 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. 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. 1994). 2005). organisational climate (Caird & Kline. However. Haddon (1963). 1997. 2004). psychological factors may play different roles according to driver age (Dumais et al. to a large degree. as well as on the attitudes and behaviour of single drivers (p. or at least predict. The lack of progress in trying to identify psychological factors that cause. conflicting or of relatively little importance (Iversen & Rundmo. (b) the choice of time periods for calculating the frequency of crash-related outcomes. He conducted a meta-analysis of some 136 previous studies researching the effects of at least one psychological predictor of 20 . Further. 2002. Ranney. Lajunen & Summala. 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. prior accident experience (Lin et al. 377).
Underwood & Milton. 1993). driving behaviour and crash-related outcomes include: the use of self-reported crash data. Novaco (2000) argued that: The field of transportation has always had a rich potential for psychology. Other methodological factors that may cloud the relationship between psycho-social variables. the picture that emerges is indeed grave. 1996. and the influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of crash blameworthiness (Davies & Patel. 2005). Wagenaar & van Koppen. 1997a).1 An Applied Perspective Ever since Tillman and Hobbs (1949) stated that “a man drives as he lives” (p. 21 .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. 2002. 1965) but did not really gain momentum until the 1980s (Risser. motivation and behavioural performance as potential underlying causal factors in driver behaviour (Jonah. the extent of exposure of drivers to the driving task (af Wahlberg. It would seem that very few of the studies on accident predictors are actually possible to interpret in any straightforward way. there has been an interest in driver personality.2. 1961. Nevertheless. psychologists have given scant attention to this topic. 2003). The need for a more specialised focus by applied psychologists and ergonomists on driving-related research problems and roadway safety was raised throughout the 1960s (Cozan. the use of inconsistent crash definitions. 2003). accuracy of witness recall of crash details (Crombag. 321). Preston & Harris.2. especially considering the salience of transportation in the routines of daily life. the lack of replication of many studies. information processing. 482).2 The Emergence of Traffic Psychology as a Scientific Discipline 2. and we are left with a very vague knowledge of what psychological variables can actually predict accidents (p.2. 2.
Temes and Hermida (2001) found. transportation planning. These interrelationshps provide a vast terrain for psychological research (pp.2. anthropology and sociology. attitudes about the origin and destination of the trip and resources for choosing alternative travel modes and schedules. 2002).) The Traffic and Transportation Psychology Division of the International Association of Applied Psychology was established in 1994 and there has been a steady growth in publications. 246).2.654-655. ergonomics.2 A Multidisciplinary Approach From the outset. in the field of traffic. According to Rothengatter (2001). or peculiar to. traffic psychology has drawn from multidisciplinary perspectives. but that complex traffic 22 . conferences and coordination of professional affiliations ever since (Groeger. as a general objective to minimise the harmful effects of traffic participation” (p. Groeger (2002) argued that there is “no psychology which is specific to. that individuals tend to combine their interests in traffic psychology with some other area of specialisation such as educational psychology. eoncompassing engineering.” (p. 3). in a Spanish survey. psychology. traffic and transportation. 4) and describes it as an “interdisciplinary. This includes the research that serves this purpose” (p. integrative and international viewpoint based on application in order to address changing situations and objectives” (p. “the task of traffic psychology is to understand. Ochando. Indeed. 2. To wit. Huguenin (2005) defines traffic psychology as “the psychological intervention. medicine. or the psychological support for intervention. 4).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. predict and provide measures to modify road user behaviour at the levels identified with.
in particular. a paradigm that has been applied increasingly to driving safety questions in developing countries (Dharmaratne & Ameratunga. commented that: From the perspective of the driver. which are sometimes expressed in road markings and road signs (p. Hyder & Peden. over the past ten years. Stanton (2007) noted that. which she described as the two main planks of social cognition. 2000). emphasising the primacy of attitudes and attributions. the road infrastructure and other road users. 2004. Odero. surrounding environments and 23 . Parker (2004) pointed to the role played by social psychology in the area of road safety. Peden & Hyder. Garner and Zwi. 2002). ergonomics is concerned with identifying and designing technical and organisational means for facilitating the driver’s interaction with the road environment. the road environment comprises the vehicle. the design of driver interfaces and driver assistance systems with motor vehicles. 2007. 1995. the study of cognitive processes. and of cognitive control over vehicle and highway systems involved (Bridger. 24). 1997. 1158). It also includes the rules of the highway code Saad (2002) governing the use of the road infrastructure and interactions with other users. the design of vehicle automation and a deeper understanding of why drivers behave as they do” (p. Johnston. and that “ergonomics has much to offer in the design of driver education and training programmes. Wilson. In a recent special edition. both by providing a better understanding of human-machine interaction. as well. Spielberger and Frank (1992) made similar comments with regard to the contribution of health psychology through the use of public health models and methodologies.behaviour is a very important and worthwhile test-bed for psychology and psychological theory and. In the broadest sense. there have been 103 papers published in the Ergonomics journal alone. Much of the ergonomic research carried out to date has been focused on adapting motor vehicle conveyances. Ergonomics has made a contribution. 2003.
2004). and “Generation Three” ergonomics. in which the goal is to manage automation and dynamic function allocations. though. which assumes a necessary communication between person and machine led to a dialogue between the various designers of car interiors. traffic psychologists frequently engage in theory-building. Neerincx & Schriebers. 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. These applications are consistent with the paradigms Boff (2006) has described as “Generation Two” ergonomics. Stanton & Young. 1997. According to Barjonet & Tortosa (2001).tasks to human capabilities and limitations. particularly the notions of mental load. Noy. 2006. Theories and Models In attempting to understand.3. which focuses on symbiotic technologies that amplify human physical and cognitive capabilities.3 2. predict and modify road user behaviour.1 Theories of Driving Behaviour Concepts. 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. Increasingly. This involves the coherent grouping of general propositions for use as principles in explaining various classes of driving phenomena. Walker. 2. Concepts are the building blocks for theory and may be defined as: 24 . Jannssen. error and cognitive modelling. 26). 2001). 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. a paradigm that Boff (2006) described as “Generation One” ergonomics. “This school of though. the most significant contribution of ergonomics was that it introduced the idea that motor vehicle operation was a task and therefore brought to traffic psychology the broad range of concepts and methods operating in industrial psychology and work-related accidents.
p. Many of the theories that have been proposed have failed to generate testable hypotheses. which may be defined as: A set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural phenomena (Kerlinger. 2005). 8) Any set of systematically interrelated concepts or hypotheses that purports to explain and predict phenomena (Robbins. Ericsson & Bourne Jr. or accident-causing behaviours. To a degree. there is no generally accepted theory which elucidates principles from which a broad. which is then followed by a process of generalisation (Schneider. “theory” is a term used interchangeably with the word “model”. 2005. 1995). Healy. Concepts can be linked together to form a theory. p. 1969). the latter is defined more narrowly as “a set of assumptions or postulates. but for the purposes of this thesis.2 Traffic Psychology: Slow Progress in Theory-Building Theory development in traffic psychology has not progressed well (Summala. 2000.3. Ranney (1994) pointed out that it has never been clear. or both. Concepts are formed by a process of mental abstraction. many models have been proposed. each ordering driving reality from its own particular set of empirical observations. On the other hand. 2. Reasons for this are likely several.A word or set of words that expresses a general idea concerning the nature of something or the relations between things. 1985). often providing a category for the classification of phenomena (Theodorson & Theodorson. generalisable understanding of the driving process can be deduced. this may be due to 25 . which attempts to provide a generalised working construct that can account for empirical data or relationships” (Chaplin. often in mathematical form. whether theories should explain everyday driving. in traffic psychology.. In traffic psychology. A-18) Often.
I believe it is but one of the goals a driver has. and emotional determinants. 2004. attitudes. but it is also a reflection that the driving task is a highly sophisticated multi-factorial process involving perceptual. feel in control. 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. 189). social. it is highly improbable that a single theoretical stance is likely to be sufficient to account for behaviour in traffic.the imprecise definition of concepts. and most of the time is not especially influential. enjoy driving.3 The Individual Differences Approach Placed in similar situations.. five areas of theory attempt to explain and predict driving behaviour. minimise delay and driving time. Groeger and Rothengatter (1998) argued that. cognitive. or ever had sufficient knowledge of possible outcomes on which to base a deliberate action (p. hierarchical theories of driver adaptation. risk adaptation theories. These may be classified as: theories of individual differences. Rothengatter. it does not mean that the driver had safety as a primary goal. 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. 26 . 2. motives and personalities (Robbins. taskcapability frameworks and attitude-behaviour models (Keskinen et al.3. Notwithstanding these difficulties. 2005). … Just because we as investigators have an understanding of safety as a goal. 2002). not all people act exactly alike and this is a function of their differing values. etc. Instead. avoid obstacles. given the complexity of human behaviour. the driver’s aspirations are to reach destinations. perceptions.
the search for individual differences relevant to crash involvement continues to yield a large body of literature. 2000). Similar studies of driver risk-taking and other individual differences have been largely absent with Asian populations and non-existent in Malaysia. 1979). 1990). McRae &Costa. 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). irresponsibility and driving related aggression. while the second high-risk group reported high sensation-seking. However. the extraversion variable has been associated with a higher frequency of traffic offences (Renner & Anderle. In an attempt to identify subtypes of young Norwegian drivers. 1995. anxiety and driving anger. “these findings have yet to be embodied in a general theory of differential crash risk. extraversion was found to predict traffic accidents. In a large number of studies of specific samples from various countries. aged 16 to 29 years. or “Big Five” personality model (Costa & McRae. aggression. There have been theories of crash causation that have focused on particular groups of 27 . thrill and adventure seeking and tended to avoid socially stimulating situations when compared with violators.Trimpop and Kirkcaldy (1997). the first of which was characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety and high levels of sensation-seeking. Of the five factors examined – extraversion. Drawing from a large pool of data that included personality measures and both traffic and work-related statistics for 34 nations. 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. conscientiousness. Lajunen (2001) reported that countries with high extraversion scores had more traffic fatalities than those with moderate or low extraversion scores. neuroticism. crash frequency (Pestonjee & Singh. found that a sample of young Canadian automobile drivers. 1980) and other safety outcomes. but not occupational accidents. without driving violations had lower scores on measures of risk-taking behaviour. Ulleberg (2001) found two high-risk groups. for instance. According to Rothengatter (2002).
p.1 Accident Proneness One concept that sought to integrate individual differences within a predictive theory relates to the “accident-prone personality”. occupational and otherwise.3. it should be a reasonably simple matter to find 28 . in response to concern over the number of accidental deaths and injuries in World War I production industries (Blackler & Shimmin. in certain cases. ‘Accident proneness’ had a nice ring to it. 1920). differed from person to person (Greenwood & Yule. the British government established the British Industrial Fatigue Research Board. According to Haight (2004). 1993. It provided a challenge to the psychology profession to devise a way to measure it. or higher conative or cognitive function” (Cresswell & Froggat. found first that the frequency of accidents. but none have attempted a more general integration” (Elander.3. p. weight and perhaps even intelligence. but persists today. his or her accident proneness. λ. an idea that has had an uneven level of acceptance by ergonomists and traffic psychologists through the years. that individual is more likely at all times to incur an accident than his colleagues even though exposed to equal risk. 290). “irrespective of environment. the average number of accidents.finding. during and following the war years. The designation of a high-λ individual as “accident prone” implied that. In 1917. If each individual has a unique λ-value. The individual values of each worker’s λ became known as the degree of accident proneness. 1984). just as one can meaure height. 2. The difficulty was that no one knew how to determine its value for a given individual. Research by board statisticians. 1962. could be modelled almost exactly by the Poisson distribution but then that.152). West & French. personality. and that this is due to some characteristic or summation of characteristics associated with corporeal dexterity. sensori-motor skill.
perhaps physiological. with shorter periods giving sharper contrasts (Moore.out what that value is. that high-λ group would be comprised of the same individuals or of an entirely new cohort (Haight. Johnson (1946). inadequate or irrelevant. 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. 1939) and many others. a certain percentage would experience a higher accident frequency than would other groups year after year. subjects reported significant. noting that. 294). p. by devising clever tests. but very low correlations between accident frequency at work. The theory of the accident-prone individual also came under attack on a conceptual basis. 2004). as well. 1991. 195). however. 1956). produced a positive. motivated largely by a desire to select lorry drivers in Europe who were less likely to become involved in costly roadway crashes (Barjonet & Tortosa. in traffic or when playing 29 . more probably psychological (p. 2004). but did not take into consideration whether. Mintz and Blum (1949) argued that “the method of studying accident proneness by demonstrating that small percentages of people have large percentages of the accidents is unsound and fallacious” (p. with a series of tests constructed by Greenwood and Woods (1919). 422). Early work on the concept attempted to do just that. replicable result that correlated substantially with the accident experience of individuals (Haight. Scores on the λ dimension. 1997). None of the experiments. made an assumption that. with extensive critiques that concluded statistical analyses were almost all invalid. Arbous and Kerrich (1951) and much later McKenna (1983) systematically destroyed the supportive literature. it was pointed out are highly sensitive to the length of the survey period. in a Finnish telephone survey. A study by Salminen and Heiskanen (1997) provided empirical support for this position. 1929. 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. “Because crashes are so infrequent. Farmer and Chambers (1926. inappropriate. at home. in any sample. in successive years. The accident-prone concept.
3. sports and family settings. therefore. “it is still difficult to identify the accident prone individuals that compose this group. 1980. While their stated conclusion was that an accident prone group definitely existed.sports.2 Differential Accident Involvement McKenna (1983) suggested that the accident proneness concept should be replaced by the less historically loaded term “differential accident involvement”. it denotes an area of study rather than a theory. 8-9). 1998). The concept itself is ill-defined. and assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash (Elander et al. 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. it is still generating research and controversy (Vavrik. because individuals can experience multiple accidents because of chance alone and also because of a higher exposure to risk independent of personal factors” (p. 562). This concept does not prejudge the issue of causation.05. Pijl. Only 15% of the studies included in their analysis had been conducted on road user crash experience. no stable personality characteristics that can be identified with accident-proneness have been discovered. but the authors reported that the heterogeneous nature of sub-groups did not permit comparisons. Alternative explanations must be found for persons experiencing multiple accidents (Lindsey. Visser. Despite the low repute in which many have regarded the accident proneness concept. Ultimately. in no case did correlations between traffic crashes and other types of accidents exceed r =. pp. Stolk.. roadway. Neeleman and Rosmalen (2007) have published a meta-review of 79 studies. screened for operational and prevalence rates related to accident proneness within work. So. It is seen as preferable to earlier formulations because it places more emphasis on contributing factors outside the person.3. the consensus position became that: Accident proneness as a concept has little use in practical accident prevention. moving away from the main conceptual criticism of traditional 30 . 2. 1993).
. 2.3. experience more accidents than others. For example. That is. Elander et al. following their review of the literature. concluded that differential crash risk is not readily accounted for by previous crash rates.1 Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT) In an attempt to explain these findings. compulsory seatbelts and vehicle design improvements reduced motor vehicle crash fatalities. researchers began to turn their attention to not-so-easy measures for changing driver behaviour. crash barriers. and that transient factors probably interact with stable traits of the individual in their causation. 2. people strive to maintain a target level of risk all the time and. when they perceive a discrepancy between the observed level of risk and the desired target level of risk.accident proneness (Chmiel. albeit not crash occurrence. Wilde (1982.4 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. A driver who enters a construction zone. but avoids the assumption of a stable phenomenon that accounts for more accidents in all situations. in a study of driving on icy roads. 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.4. The introduction of divided highways. 2000). suddenly confronted with uneven pavement. they adjust their behaviour to eliminate the discrepancy. substantially. After the relatively easy engineering measures were implemented to reduce the seriousness of the consequences of driver behaviour. in fact. Dewar (2002b) noted that the notion of differential liability allows for the observation that some individuals do. large earth-moving 31 . However.3. 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. 1988) proposed that a control mechanism operates to keep overall risk per unit time constant.
14). “the aggregate target risk in a community is what produces the accident toll and the only way in which this toll can be reduced. performing more dangerous manouevers and driving with significantly shorter headway distances than those driving without ABS (Aschenbrenner & Biehl. in turn.vehicles and warning flags. In two separate studies. When others (Haight. would perceive a level of risk above his target and would tend to reduce speed and increase vigilance. 2005). observers posing as passengers rated German taxicab drivers in vehicles equipped with anti-lock braking systems (ABS) as driving more aggressively. 2002). Conversely. a driver motoring along a wide. That is. 1988. according to the theory. postulating that the number of accidents in any given country would only depend on the accident rate which the population is willing to tolerate. McHugh & Pender. is if the level of target risk is reduced. RHT proponents argued that drivers were adapting behaviourally to the effects of ABS by driving less safely and that this. 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. many of which have attempted to observe and comment on individual behavioural change after the risk variable is manipulated. Michon. Sagberg. RHT research of this nature has been used to argue that most engineering interventions and roadway regulations have little or no benefit (Smiley. 2002) and that driver education programmes need to be extensively revamped (Wilde. 1997). 2008. Wilde’s theory was couched at a societal level. Ranney. 1994) argued that this made the theory essentially untestable. The central implication of RHT is that safety interventions need to be values-oriented and aimed at lowering the level of 32 . Huguenin (2001) noted that RHT has spawned a considerable number of studies.” (Fuller. p. given that human behaviour will continue to be motivated by internal homeostatic processes. according to the theory. 1986. for example. 1989. Wilde (1994) reframed the concept of target risk as an individual variable based on four perceived utilities. 1994. Fosser & Sætermo. Collectively. reduced the predicted safety benefits of such systems (Wilde. 2001. flat. and not on the specific measures taken in other sectors of the control system. Wilde. Initially. at least until the target risk level was reached.
2004). Rothengatter. 1977). 223).. Corrigan & Coombs. 2002). but that the RHT neither adequately explains nor predicts the circumstances under which it does. (p. however. but that does not mean that they do so systematically or that they know exactly how much to slow down to maintain constancy of risk. The notion that people have a constant point of acceptable risk. Lichtenstein. the community.. Evans 33 . p. Wilde’s RHT has generated controversy and opposition (Keskinen et al. Also. 1151). a tenet for which no convincing support has been yet generated (Michon. 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. 2008. 1994. Slovic. More than any other driving theory. pay sufficient attention to risk. 2001. Robertson and Pless (2002) made the case forcefully that: … some drivers may sometimes slow down in rain. Fischoff. 2004). General consensus is that behavioural adaptation to vehicle and environmental conditions often does occur (Rothengatter. 1989. Considerable criticism revolves around the imprecise nature of the theory itself. “The extent of risk taking with respect to safety and health in a given society ultimately depends on values that prevail in that society. To the contrary.target risk that people are willing to tolerate. In a review of research offered as support of the RHT. it has been argued people are not sufficiently sensitive to changes in low risk probabilities to react behaviourally as RHT predicts (Fuller et al. “Costs and benefits are central to the model.” (Vaa. and not on the available technology” (Wilde. 53). “It is unclear whether risk homeostasis occurs at the level of the individual. psychologically weighing at every moment the perceived and targeted risk levels inherent in every environment. Criticisms have been aimed at Wilde’s theory on empirical as well as conceptual grounds. or the nation” (Brown & Noy. but they are not defined in psychological terms. p. 2002). the notion of target risk implies that drivers are constant “comparers”.
zero-risk theory still retains some of its conceptual shortcomings. 92). In other words. 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. some degree of risk during the performance of this task. 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. At this point. a necessary and highly controversial assumption in Wilde’s theory.(1986) concluded that “risk homeostasis theory should be rejected because there is no convincing evidence supporting it and much evidence refuting it” (p. drivers avoid ‘feeling fear’ (hence. Summala’s zero-risk model of driver behaviour (Summala & Näätänen. 2004. Rothengatter (2002) has questioned how drivers can determine that a threshold has been exceeded if they do not constantly assess risk. p. In addition. Fuller (2005) has argued that the theory’s premise that safe margins are learned creates an implausible requirement to recognise. drivers compare the distance from hazards or time-tocollision to a subjective safety margin threshold and take action only when the threshold is exceeded. is a very basic human skill that can be carried out in the absence of extensive conscious processing. Only when the subjective risk reaches a level that was not anticipated will the drivers change their behaviour. experience ‘zero-risk’) when they drive by anticipating. they experience uncomfortable feelings of fear and abruptly change behaviour. and 34 . 2. 1988) proposed that drivers do not constantly assess risk while driving. after a similar review.2 Zero Risk Theory Another risk-based theory.3. 81). O’Neill and Williams (1998). 1987. increasing safety margins” (Brown & Noy. Summala. for example. or expecting. Rather. Summala (1986) suggested that estimating time-to-collision. Michon (1989) noted that most studies attempting to support the RHT deal with data only at the aggregate level. 26).4.
and specific driver actions.learn how to respond safety to. very little if any research has been carried out with respect to intrinsic motivation.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. much of which arises from personality. In an attempt to deal with this and to expand on the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators. for instance. 1996. Summala argued that behavioural adaptation. such as time pressure. 1999).3. Summala (1996. A major element in the zero risk theory was the influence of motivation. age and social variables. Meijman & Roghengatter. 1998. and when confronted with various environmental conditions or psychological processes. 2. Hataaka. Reeder et al. do appear to affect drivers’ willingness to accept risk levels that approach thresholds and.1). in which he introduced a “task cube” to explain the driving process. would vary depending on the combination of factors from the three dimensions. Glad & Hernetkoskis. 1997) refined his earlier theory into a hierarchical model of driver behavioural adaptation. 35 . The cube presented three dimensions of driver behaviour: a functional hierarchy. it may not manifest itself as a less cautious speed or headway choice but rather as a conscious. If behavioural adaptation were to take place in response to the presence of a supplementary restraint system (SRS). what is a virtually infinite number of roads and traffic scenarios. On the other hand. Gregersen. 2002. as a result. their behaviour becomes less adaptive to prevailing circumstances (Delhomme & Meyer. pre-meditated decision not to wear seatbelts. Keskinen. level of psychological processing and a functional taxonomy of driving actions (see Figure 2. used to explain drivers’ tendencies to approach as closely as possible to the risk threshold. A large number of studies show that external motives. Van der Hulst.
1: Task Cube (from Summala. 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. Headway control Obstacle avoidance Crossing management Passing and other maneuvers FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY Figure 2. 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. 15). 1996) Keskinen et al. at the same time. Even though it is true that the performance on one task can bear consequences for the performance for the other. Rothengatter (2002) questioned the concept of a hierarchy. seemingly concurrently. (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. a property absent within the task cube concept. for example. Automated) Navigation Speed and time control Guidance Vehicle control Lane keeping etc. but that is not 36 . criticised the model for being overly complicated and resembling “more a description or a list of important variables than a solid model” (p.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.
6 Task Capability Interface (TCI) Theory In perhaps the most ambitious of the leading driving behaviour theories. either by modifying task demand or by altering their capability.sufficient reason to presume they are two distinct levels of the same task rather than two different tasks (p.3. Safety Compensatory action by others Crash! Capability (C) Loss of control C>D Control C<D Task Demands (D) Safety Figure 2. Loss of control occurs at the point where capability is less than that required to carry out the task safely.. 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. 1988) and the zero risk theory (Näätänen & Summala. drivers are able to manage the interface between demands and capabilities (see Figure 2. affective states). 2. high speeds.g.2: Task-Capability Theory (after Fuller. this becomes more difficult when factors external to the driving task (e. 2005) integrated competing components of the RHT (Wilde. Fuller argued that loss of control occurs when task demands exceed drivers’ capabilities. 252). unexpected changes in task demand (decreased visibility. Most of the time. However. 1982. Fuller (2000. 2000) 37 .1). 1976) by proposing that drivers attempt to match task demands with their capability to maintain control.
Since 1985. simply because it is more straightforward to establish the parameters that drivers use to assess their competence than it is to measure target or subjective risk. Generally. been regarded as potentially more productive than earlier risk-based theories. generally referring to a positive or negative 38 . It generally refers to the thoughts and feelings that impel us to behave in one way and not in another” (Parker. Fishbein & Ajzen.6. 40). subjective norms and behavioural intentions can be used to predict behaviour.Fuller’s theory has. people’s behaviour is determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. p. Langdridge (2004) describes the theory of reasoned action as one of the most important theories in attitude-behaviour research. 2004. 1991). (2004) have argued that it is deserving of more attention than it has received to date. 1985. 2. According to the TRA. objects. institutions or issues (Chaplin. Rothengatter (2002) has stressed that the perception of capability is often influenced by external factors (impairment.7 Attitude-behaviour Theories 2. time pressure). providing an account of the way in which attitudes. Brown & Noy have pointed out that TCI theory is limited in its ability to explain all of the decision points and responses that occur during a more complex driving scenario such as over-taking. and Keskinen et al. p.3. Intention is the cognitive representation of an individual’s readiness to engage in a given behaviour. the notion of matching competence with task demand promises to be very useful in understanding driver behaviour. neither of which was originally intended as a way of explaining driver behaviour. emotional state. 1985. for the most part. such that it is not capability but perceived capability that interfaces with task demand. 1975) and the subsequent theory of planned behaviour (TPB: Ajzen. and is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behaviour. Intention is determined by the summed effects of: (a) attitudes toward the behaviour.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.3. traffic psychology has seen a resurgence of interest in the role played by attitudes. Two limitations have been noted. largely due to the focus that has been provided by the theory of reasoned action (TRA. 126). however.
see Figure 2. Hartwick and Warshaw (1988) found that the theory had strong predictive utility. 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”). then. denoting the subjective degree of control which individuals perceive themselves having over the performance of a behaviour. This extended framework was introduced as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB. p. According to the TPB. “Even very mundane activities. 2007).3. 2. however (Sharma & Kanekar. behavioural intention is the result of attitudes (“do I feel like this is a good thing to do?”).judgement with respect to behavioural performance (“accelerating to pass through a cross-junction against an amber light is bad/good”). To deal with this uncertainty. such that every intended behaviour is a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty. he incorporated the concept of “perceived behavioural control” (PBC). and a meta-analysis carried out by Sheppard. 1985. Ajzen and Fishbein (2000) argued that intention is the best predictor of behaviour.” (Azjen. are sometimes subject to the influence of factors beyond one’s control. subjective norms (“do others feel this is a good thing for me to do?”). which can usually be performed (or not performed) at will. and perceived control (“do I really believe that I can do this?”).2 Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) Complications hindered the application of the TRA in circumstances where behaviours were not fully under volitional control. 39 . 24).2).7.
Its inclusion as a predictor of behaviour is premised on the notion that. creating a proxy effect that increases the likelihood that behaviour will be successfully performed. Further. 2002. 2003). The TPB has spawned a huge body of research. including driving and “it has to be admitted that the theory of planned behaviour has stood up well. p. on the performance of a wide range of behaviours. 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.. 40 . 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. 1989) Within the theory. PBC is considered a determinant of both the individual’s intentions and the individual’s behaviour. it will directly influence behaviour (Armitage & Christian.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. greater perceived control (i. In one study. 253). when intention is held constant. A belief that the described violations were not all that serious (attitudes). or sense of self-efficacy. 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. stronger feelings that “I can do it”) will heighten an individual’s confidence level.e. speed on a major road or overtake dangerously. to the extent to which PBC reflects an individual’s level of actual control.3: Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen.
This might be seen as evidence of the proxy effect earlier described by Armitage and Christian (2002). 2002). 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. while Rautela and Pant (2007) modelled crash risk on mountain roads in India using geographical information system (GIS) data.In another study. 2.2). used a negativebinomial regression technique to analyse highway-rail crash statistics within a sixstate radius in the USA and derived a predictive model in which the contribution of traffic characteristics. Scuffham (2003) used a different approach to model the changes in seasonal patterns of fatal crashes in New Zealand according to unemployment rate.1 Descriptive Models of Driver Behaviour Statistical Models If traffic psychology lacks a general unified theory of driving behaviour. it was not significant (Scuffham & Langley. vehicles. but PBC did not contribute to the prediction of speeding violations measured with an intelligent speed adaptation (ISA) device that logged km/hr and location at all times the vehicle was in motion. roadway configuration and crossing design were weighted.4. they found that real GDP per capita was related to the number of crashes. Similar to later findings by Law et al. Gross Domestic Product per capita and alcohol consumption. Edwards (1996) developed a spatial model.1. subjective norms and PBC were all significant determinants of self-reported speeding. Austin and Carson (2002). Wállen Warner and Åberg (2006) used structural equation modelling to predict drivers’ everyday speeding behaviour using the TPB as a frame of reference.2. but after controlling for distance travelled. based on data extracted from police record forms. pedestrians and road environments in a range of 41 .4 2. Attitude toward speeding. for instance. 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. A large number of studies have reported epidemiological characteristics of drivers. to predict weather-related crashes in England and Wales.
2. Seow & Lim. Richardson & Downe. Swaddiwudhipong.2.. concealing the interactions that underlie the behaviour of real traffic systems (Noy. within specific situational contexts.4. Nguntra. This model has been instrumental in stimulating research designs and accident interventions for the last thirty yeasrs (Williams. and have proposed expanding the matrix to better provide for the analysis of inter-relationships between each of the four basic elements. Haddon (1970) proposed a framework in which each of these elements could be examined as part of an analytical matrix (see Figure 2.g.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). 1999). PRE-CRASH CRASH POST-CRASH BASIC ELEMENTS OF A HIGHWAY EVENT Human (H) Vehicle (V) Road (R) Environment (E) Figure 2.2 Process Models 2. 1994). 1997. 1997) 42 . R. More recently. Mahasakpan. 1998. Koonchote & Tantiratna. Law.4: The Haddon Matrix (Noy. E and especially H factors. however. the road (R) and the environment (E). One way of accomplishing this may be through the creation of models that stress the mediational role played by certain V. the vehicle (V).4).4. 2000).locations and settings (e. some researchers have argued that the Haddon Matrix is limited by the way it considers each element independently.
gender.g..2. relevant factors are grouped as occurring within either the distal context or the proximal context of the accident (see Figure 2. the proximal context is made up of driver behaviours and attitudes (e. substance abuse) that. reckless lane transitions or overtaking. Within the generic model. contribute directly to crash outcomes. speeding. vehicle and environmental conditions related to accident causation but a range of driver demographic (e. (1993) discussed the problem of choosing predictor variables in studies of behavioural and personality influences on road-traffic crash risk. 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. when one observes a correlation between a behavioural measure and crash risk. sensation seeking. Personality factors within the 43 . there are four possible explanations: the behavioural measure may directly influence crash risk. on one hand. are affected by specific or collective factors from the distal context and.g. it may influence crash risk through some other. extraversion.. Therefore.2.g. or crash risk may influence the behavioural measure (p.4. more proximal variable. it may happen to correlate with some other factor that influences crash risk but play no role itself.. aggression). on the other hand. driving experience) and psychological characteristics (e.2 A Contextual Mediated Model of Personality and Behavioural Predictors of Motor Vehicle Crashes Elander et al. 283).5). age. 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. as well. arguing that: Correlational studies suffer from the inescapable problem that causality cannot be established. Factors within the distal context include not only road. By contrast.
As such. DISTAL CONTEXT Road and vehicle condition Demographic characteristics Culture-specific factors.g. depression.5: Contextual Mediated Model of Personality. cultural driving habits and beliefs Relatively stable personality characteristics. with results generally supporting the notion that factors in the distal context contributed to accident causation and predicted accidents via their effects on proximal factors. it would be expected that relationships between the distal and proximal contexts would be stronger than those between the proximal context and crash outcomes. e. sensation seeking. psychological symptoms. Sümer examined the effect of three distal elements – sensation seeking. 2003) 44 . risk taking. hostility and psychoticism) – both on three proximal elements – aberrant driving behaviour. choice of preferred speed and dysfunctional drinking habits – and on the frequency of self-reported accidents. PROXIMAL CONTEXT Safety skills Aberrant driving behaviors Violations Errors Speeding Drinking and driving Dysfunctional drinking e. aggression Attributions regarding CRASH OUTCOMES accidents Fatalism Enforcement Figure 2. Variables within the distal context would be expected to affect accident frequency indirectly and through their relationships with measures of proximal behaviour factors. such that direct effects of distal factors would be most likely insignificant or weak.distal context were assumed to be capable of creating generalized tendencies that increased risks of accidents within behavioural variables measured within the proximal context.g. aggression and psychological symptoms (anxiety. Behavioural Predictors and Motor Vehicle Crashes (from Sümer.
process or transformation exists through which one variable influences another (Frazier. then the significance level of path c would be reduced to insignificance or a less significant level (path c’). M. 45 . in which there are two causal paths feeding into the outcome variable: path c′ depicts the direct effect of X on Y. Heppner & Mallinckrodt. which in turn exerts an effect on Y through path b (Baron & Kenny. 2004). while path a represents the effect of X on some mediator variable. In Figure 2. driver impairment and so on) were hypothesised to mediate the effect of distal variables on the frequency or likelihood of crash outcomes. Figure 2. 2003).2. driver propensities to commit errors or violations. 1986). moderating or mediating effects.6(i). the variable X is called the initial or predictor variable and it causes the variable Y. Mediation can be said to occur when some mechanism.6(ii) illustrates the basic causal chain involved in mediation. Also termed intervening variables.2. proximal variables (including safety skill levels. In the case where X no longer affects Y after M has been controlled. for instance. drivers’ safety skills were a mediator of the effects of personality or cultural background on crash frequency. Tix and Barron. 2006). 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) and a distinction can be drawn between partial mediation and complete mediation (Wei. Regression analyses can be used to test these causal paths to the outcome variable. If. mediators are variables that represent constructs proposed to explain the association between two variables (Hoyle & Robinson.4. then it can be concluded that complete mediation occurs. such that path c′ is zero. In Sümer’s (2003) generic contextual mediated model. called the outcome.3 Core Concepts in the Contextual Mediated Model: Moderation and Mediation Inter-variable relationships within the contextual mediated model can have direct.
these are not directly relevant conceptually to testing the moderator hypothesis. or testing the moderating effect. and the interaction or product of these two (path c).6: Inter-variable Relationships in Mediation Models In contrast. can the moderator hypothesis be concluded as supported (Baron & Kenny. there are three causal paths that can effect the outcome. 46 . Baron and Kenny have further added that although the predictor and moderator can have significant effects on the outcome variable. the impact of a moderator (path b). a moderating variable is one that has a strong contingent effect on the relationship between independent and dependent variable (Sekaran. 2003). Only if the interaction (path c) is significant. 1986). or dependent.7): the impact of a predictor. or independent variable (path a). variable (see Figure 2.(i) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) c′ c Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) (ii) X Predictor Variable (Distal Variable) a M Mediator Variable (Proximal Variable) b Y Outcome Variable (Crash Outcomes) Figure 2.
they did have a significant association with both dysfunctional alcohol use and aberrant driving behaviours. Sümer (2003) identified three classes of distal variables: psychological symptoms (depression. mostly from taxi and heavy trucking. more relevant to the model he proposed. verbal aggression.2. In turn. Using structured equation modelling. anxiety.4. intensity) and aggression (physical aggression. given wide 47 . errors). he found that. A number of questions may be raised about Sümer’s (2003) analysis. Sümer also find that aberrant driving behaviour.7: Inter-variable Relationships in Moderation Model 2. However. sensationseeking and risk-taking (novelty. the effects of the proximal variables on the number of crashes experienced within a three-year period was examined. hostility. while psychological factors did not predict speed choice. anger). Further. His sample of 321 participants combined both professional drivers. a proximal variable significantly mediated the relationship between the three distal variables and the frequency of crashes. and non-professional students who were mostly students. No attempt was made to differentiate between these two groups. psychoticism).4 Studies of Driving Behaviour Using the Contextual Mediated Model In his initial study.Predictor Variable X a Moderator Z b Y Outcome Variable c Predictor X Moderator Figure 2. hostility. choice of speed and alcohol use (antisocial drinking. He examined their effects on three proximal variables: aberrant driving behaviour (violations. dangerous drinking).
including the three-year time-frame over which drivers were asked to report crash occurrence. 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. 1920). In a subsequent study. the distal factors were: neuroticism (a tendency to experience negative affect and anxiety). personality model (Costa & McRae. tends to fit a Poisson distribution or. Arthur. 1990) to a similar analysis. sensation seeking). as recommended by Elander et al. It is questionable whether crash details can be recalled accurately for up to 36 months and requires the assumption that the psychological characteristics. Notwithstanding these methodological considerations. agreeableness (helpfulness. Watson. sensation seeking patterns.variation in the number of kilometres driven annually by participants (SD = 14. Bell.739). in that the standard multivariate correlation methods applied as part of his LISREL analysis assumed a normal distribution of crash frequency scores. Elander et. violations) and the outcome measure was expanded to include the self-reported number of crashes and traffic offences committed over a three-year period. Day. applied the five factor. or “Big Five”. 1995. in most cases.. Sümer’s model construction might also be questioned. (1993) and others. trust). extraversion (interpersonal warmth. 1998). Edward. 2002. 2005. responsibility. 1919. lapses. Greenwood & Yule. Sümer’s decision to use self-report data is subject to the usual validity considerations raised by several authors (af Wahlberg. Lajunen and Özkan (2005). The proximal factor was again aberrant driving behaviour (errors. self-discipline) and openness (adventurousness. for high-λ individuals. broad-mindedness). it was somewhat surprising that no attempt was made to control for differing levels of traffic exposure. 2003. 1993). McRae &Costa. Tubré & Tubré. a negative-binomial distribution (Greenwood & Woods. conscientiousness (dependability. al. Finally. Here. while it has been accepted since the early accident proneness studies of the IFRB that crash frequency. 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. Sümer. Results indicated that all five of the personality factors had indirect effects on crash risk through their effects on 48 .
Sümer and Erol (2005) found that a contextual mediated model was successful in showing relationships between distal and proximal predictors of depression. phobia. yielding support for the contextual mediated model. Sümer. In other words. Although no other studies of driving behaviour. navy. have acted on those recommendations.2. 225). Iverson and Rundmo (2002). 49 . some researchers have worked with models that are conceptually consistent with the contextual mediated model. self esteem. for instance used the concept to examine predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Karanci. hostility. perceived threat and gender on distress levels were partially or fully mediated by individuals’ feelings of coping self-efficacy.aberrant driving behaviours. reported that driver anger. Both studies were concluded to have demonstrated support for the use of the contextual mediated model. Berument and Gunes (2005). proximal behavioural variables mediated personality factors. using a similar research design. psychotic tendencies and psychosomatic complaints among a large sample of noncommissioned officers in the Turkish army. including perceived control. optimism. within Sümer’s contextual mediated model) had direct effects on measures of more proximal risky driving tendencies. anxiety. Bilgic. They found that the effect of proximal variables. air force and gendarmerie. while the risky driving variables had strong and significant effects on accident involvement. but weaker significant effects on self-reported accident involvement. Sümer. moderators and bidirectional associations between personality and accident involvement to better understand the underlying mechanisms” (p. material loss. sensation seeking and normlessness (all of which which might be classified as distal. 2.5 Use of the Contextual Mediated Model in Other Research Sümer’s model has been applied outside the traffic psychology domain. The authors recommended that “the contextual model should be refined considering other potential mediators. prior to the present one.4. In another study. for instance.
8: Proposed Contextual Mediated Model for Safety Research in Agriculture (from Downe..g.g. proposed the use of a contextual mediated model for further research on agricultural safety (see Figure 2.5.8). uncertainty avoidance) temperamental factors (e. Type A.Downe (2007). they have been less well studied than other groups and the general understanding of age effects is not clear.. 1997. 2003.1 Age Young drivers are significantly over-represented among those injured or killed in road traffic crashes (Ballesteros & Dischinger.1 Distal Variables in the Present Study Demographic Variables 2. heterogeneity in group composition: Part of this may be due to 50 . 1995). in a study of safety training methods and personality factors in Malaysian rubber and palm oil plantations. but young drivers are more likely to sustain crash-related injuries and to die in vehicular crashes (Massie. 2007) 2.5 2..5. Campbell & Williams. 2002. 2003). Retting. Odero et al. 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. Yet. 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. Not only are they the most likely age group to be involved in crashes. Williams & Shabanova.1. Weinstein & Solomon.
follow too closely. and by high levels of sensation-seeking. Foster and O’Neill (2005) studied self-rated driving attributes of 16. McDonald (1994) reported 51 . in many cases. at least in part. comfort eating and time spent in non-organised activities with friends. This was consistent with many other studies in which young drivers tended to overestimate their own skills and under-estimate crash risk (Dewar. not all young new drivers are alike (Dewar. Billittier. Jonah. Matthews & Moran..The “young” category typically ranges from 16 to 25. Jehle. 1986). Connery & Stiller. The former is less experienced at driving. In fact. However. p. in which they believed that they were better drivers and luckier in avoiding crashes. 1997b. 2007). Moscati.to 29-year old drivers in New Zealand and found a marked crash-risk optimism. The factors of driving style and driving skill may account. for these difficulties. 2002a. but there are a great many differences between a 17-year-old and a 23-year-old driver. Several reasons have been proposed for high age-related crash risk levels. this is a reflection of lifestyle. specifically more likely to drive too fast. less experienced with the use of alcohol and has different social and motivational needs that may contribute to risk taking on the road. The problems encountered by novice drivers are often attributed to age and inexperience together. overtake dangerously. 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. 221). Younger drivers tend to have a riskier driving style than others. Vassallo et al. Graziano and Bonino (2006) have argued that. 2002a. less emotionally mature. Harré. drive while fatigued. Bina. tobacco smoking. the contrary appears to be true. Ulleberg (2004) found that drivers reporting higher preference for risk-taking were also characterised by low levels of altruism and anxiety. are more likely to engage in alcohol use when driving and are less likely to use seatbelts when compared to other drivers (Lerner. 2001. irresponsibility and driving related aggression.
and have poor information processing and attention-switching skills. and 55 per cent had seen them exhibit behaviour described as “road rage” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance. Since many of the violations commonly committed by younger drivers – speeding. it was hypothesised in the present study that. capable of distracting attention from driving and increasing crash occurrence. Stevenson et al. In the present study. They have generally lower skill levels in acquiring and integrating information. on crash and injury occurrence. as age decreased. so they have little spare attentional capacity” (p. particularly under conditions of heightened emotionality. Vissers & Jessurun. risky driving and crash frequency (Lourens. particularly with respect to controlling deviations. (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. 52 . since safe driving among younger drivers has been shown to be more prone to the effects of emotional states. 2007). 76 per cent had seen peers drive while very upset stressed. 2002). Since previous research had highlighted the association between age. Young drivers may also be more prone to drive under the influence of strong emotional states. Justification of age-related hypotheses. In a nation-wide survey of American teens.39). angry or sad (strong negative emotions). Similarly. This means that “young drivers must devote a greater proportion of their attentional resources to conscious decision making and monitoring their driving.that young drivers are less skilful in vehicle control tasks than older drivers. and that young drivers. they have cognitive schemata that are inaccurate and relatively undetailed. Ulleberg. age was hypothesized to interact with emotional states such as hopelessness and aggression. 74 per cent had seen tem drive while very happy or excited (strong positive emotions). behaviour in traffic would become less safe and crash occurrence would be more likely. indirectly. are like to perceive the driving task with overconfidence and inadequate attention to risk. managing velocity and regulating acceleration. age was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 1999.
g. Kuhn and Layde (2001) found. Shope. for instance.failure to use seat-belts. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001).g. Hasselberg and Laflamme (2006) analysed Swedish police records and found the same ratio. in addition to having a higher number of crashes. MacGregor.1. for instance. and so on – were associated with greater risk of injury. Monárrez-Espino. 2004. Raghunathan and Little (2001) noted that.4). Laapotti and Keskinen (1998) showed that when male drivers lost control of their motorcar. reported that crash incidence for men in the United States was nearly double that of women. p. 129). and behaviours predictive of fatalities. There appear to be differences in the types of crashes experienced. 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. Elliott. However. men have been shown to have a higher rate of crashes than women.. found that men had twice as high a risk as women of being involved in a motor vehicle crash during the late night hours. Chipman. darkness)” (p. male drivers incur their first crash earlier in their driving careers and are more likely to be held to blame for the incident. that males were significantly more likely to be involved in a loss-of-control accident.5. as age decreased.. Dewar (2002b) stated that “some of the reasons for this are obvious – men drive greater distances. more often at hazardous times (e. for instance. Smiley and Lee-Gosselin (1992). Tavris. rush hour) and in hazardous conditions (e. Williams and Shabanova (2003) found that young American males were significantly more likely than young females to be responsible for crash deaths. but is also evident among older drivers” (Social Issues Research Centre [SIRC]. without exception. it 53 . as well. self-reported injury would also increase. with respect to both driving behaviour and to crash involvement.2 Gender A large number of studies have found differences between males and females. it was also hypothesised that. 2. “In all studies and analyses. Marked differences also occur between the genders in terms of the number of fatalities. Waller. This gender difference is most marked in the population under 25 years.
Lonczak. and (c) female drivers are involved in more motor vehicle crashes than ever before. Ball. Lenard.usually led to a single-vehicle crash. Neighbors and Donovan (2007).S. for instance. they noted that many studies have not disaggregated samples to separate the effects of gender on studied phenomena and that there is considerable contradictory evidence about whether changes in females’ driving patterns have accompanied social and economic status changes. (a) the number of female drivers is increasing. Male drivers drove too fast and under the influence of alcohol more often in loss-of-control crashes. found that while male drivers. which typically took place during evenings and nights. in a sample taken in the U. 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. 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. 1997. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004a) indicated that. as marked changes in the roles of women in society have profound implications for the design of transportation systems (Waller. Flyte & Garner. reported more traffic citations and injuries. This is important. Welsh. state of Washington. While there is much of value in such an approach. 2001). At the same time. Dobson. but for female drivers the loss of control usually resulted in a collision with another car. to date. (b) females drive increasingly more. they did not differ from female drivers in reported driving 54 . Female drivers’ loss-of-control crashes usually took place under slippery road conditions and were more likely due to deficient vehicle handling skills. worldwide. 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. Woodcock. Brown. 525526).
on the other hand. 2003). committed fewer traffic offences and had a more positive attitude toward traffic safety and rules than males. Keskinen and Rajalin (2003) reported that Finnish females in 2001 drove less than males. and loss-of-control incidents. Lourens et al. Justification of gender-related hypotheses. McKenna. though. involved in proportionally more crashes connected to speeding. Since previous research had highlighted the association between males. (1998) and Laapotti and Keskinen (2004). were less frequently involved in crash situations. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Female drivers. it was hypothesised that males would be more likely to report higher-risk behaviour in traffic and would have higher aggression scores than would females. In a study of Dutch drivers. just as they had in 1978. showing that male drivers were. 55 . et al. 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.anger.. In other research. there is little evidence that the sex difference in the pattern of accident involvement is changing over the years” (p. commenting that “despite the fact that there has been a massive shift in the population of women drivers. In a study of male and female drivers in Finland. had proportionally more crashes connected to inadequate vehicle manoeuvring. evaluated their driving skill lower. Laapotti and Keskinen (2004b) provided evidence in support of this view. In the present study. Consistent with the findings of McKenna et al. Laapotti. on crash and injury occurrence. In a subsequent report. crash frequency and risky or aggressive driving behaviour (Monárrez-Espino. control of traffic situations. 11). 2006. Turner & McClure. (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. indirectly. alcohol consumption and for risky driving. as per the traditional pattern. Linderholm and Järmark (1998) reviewed studies dating from 1970 to 1984 and compared them to results obtained between 1985 and 1997. it was hypothesised that males and females would differ on measures of behaviour in traffic. Forward. Waylen and Burke (1998) disagreed.
that expanded the standards for collection of data on race and ethnicity in 1999 (Briggs. Levine. Despite the fact that countries’ regulatory frameworks were becoming increasingly similar.S. Melinder concluded that the type of religion and wealth were important distal factors.5. Marine. Haliburton. Garrett. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). In one of the few studies reported. Romano.3 Ethnicity A growing number of studies have examined the effect of ethnic differences on driving behaviour and crash outcomes. To a large degree. Tippetts and Voas (2005) found no differences between African-American. lower rates of safety belt use. he found that 60% of drivers had positioned belts or shoulder straps in a manner that appeared to 56 . A few studies have endeavoured to compare national driving cultures in terms of crash risk. more frequent histories of speeding offences and more extreme alcohol use. Goldweig and Warren. reported few differences between Australians and Finns. this has been the result of a change in reporting protocols within the U. White and Hispanic drivers regarding red light violations. Corry. Lezotte and Lowenstein (2000) compared Hispanic and non-Hispanic white motorists in the state of Colorado. Summala and Hartley (1998).2. nonCatholic countries. Lajunen. Conducting curb-side inspections of taxicabs in Kuala Lumpur. traffic safety regulations and traffic fatalities. differences in fatalities persisted. 2005). finding that the former group had higher fatality rates. But. On the other hand. Very little cross-cultural research related to traffic safety has been carried out in Southeast Asia. Melinder (2007) compared 15 Western European countries with regard to the relation between different sociocultural factors. being a wealthy Catholic country was associated with more traffic fatalities than were wealthy. for instance. Being a non-wealthy Catholic country was associated with higher fatality rates than being a wealthy Catholic country. Schlundt.1. Harper. Hauswald (1999) studied the incidence of covert non-compliance with seat belt regulations among Malaysian taxi drivers.
Table 2. prosperity. Strong relationship orientation. cultural differences can be more subtle. Karma. Spirituality. brotherhood/sisterhood. there was no statistical differences between ethnic groups in the frequency of this practice.3: Key Value Clusters for Each Malaysian Ethnic Group Key Value Orientations Man’s relationship with God..2). respect for elders. Based on studies that have demonstrated ethnic differences in driving behaviour (Harper et al. cooperation. ethnic-Chinese and ethnic-Indian (Williamson. Strong relationship orientation. In a study of 324 employees sampled from a cross-section of Malaysian industries. filial piety. gender was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. 2000. shame-driven. Fontaine and Richardson (2005) found that 82% of values were shared by all three ethnic groups. Conscious of what other people say about us. it was hypothesised that ethnicity would have a significant effect on 57 . courtesy. religion. Family centeredness. Justification of ethnic difference hypotheses. However. on crash and injury occurrence. regional distribution and socioeconomic status differs considerably between the three groups (Gomez. In the present study. family ties. 1999). harmony with nature. Education. 2005). dependence on family for direction in social and career decisions. humility. hard work.have them restrained but had not fastened the latch. The Malaysian population is comprised of three distinct ethnic groups: Malay. peace. Fatalistic. respect for elders. face saving. Indian-Malaysian Pre-determination. few significant value differences between ethnic groups. prosperity and integrity. Roman et al. They concluded that there were. in fact. hierarchical. Indirect communication. Abdullah and Peterson (2003) have outlined value orientations for each ethnic group (see Table 2. respect for elders. family honour. Chinese-Malaysian Pre-determined future. piety. Malay Differences have not always been consistent. indirectly. While religious affiliation. respect for knowledge. 1999). polite behaviour..
5. and indicating that those recording higher mileage per year have fewer accidents per mile (Pelz & Schuman. the motorist is less likely to encounter situations very different from those they have encountered before (p. allows many otherwise incompatible tasks to be performed together. and as such.5.2 Driver Characteristics 2. Lajunen & Summala. Allied to this. etc. Keskinen.. or (d) not have had enough experience of dealing safety with the effects of human factors on their performance (Fuller. in a given road and traffic scenario.1 Experience Driver experience makes a difference in crash risk. As experience grows. (b) not know how to carry out a particular manoeuvre correctly. Hatakka and Katila.behaviour in traffic. such as driving at different times of the day or days of the week. as drivers become more experienced. inexperienced drivers may (a) not know the correct manoeuvre so they try a different manoeuvre which turns out to be unsafe. 166). A large number of studies have shown that. journey lengths. 2.g. 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 . Groeger (2000) reviewed the reasons for this: … the weight of practice more experienced drivers have makes much of what they do routine. with different weather conditions. although not always. increased experience usually. 1995. directionality of the effect was not predicted. 2001). passenger distractions different vehicles. they are less likely to make errors and commit violations that result in crashes (e. Given the absence of relevant prior research on Malaysian cultural groups. Laapotti. 2002). 1971). (c) not have had enough practice in carrying out the manoeuvre correctly. On the other hand.2. implies the driver has had a broader variety of driving experiences.
social context company MASTERING TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Adapting to the demands of the present situation VEHICLE MANOEUVRING Controlling speed.by Keskinen. 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. Internal models contain knowledge of route. Experience can be gained through personal participation in traffic as a driver and through observing the behaviour of others. 1996. in many studies of age and gender differences. Yet. It assumes that. 2001). and sometimes confounded by gender differences. or most important facets of driving at different levels (see Figure 2. as young drivers generally have less experience than their older counterparts. When drivers tap into models at the base of cognitive hierarchy. including start and destination point and corresponding visual scenes. 2000) The effects of driving experience and age are closely linked. experience effects have not been controlled (Rothengatter. they take actions based on whether they are perceived to reflect lifestyle priorities and values. Internal models have connections to motivational and emotional systems of the driver. When using those at the top of the hierarchy. environment. GOALS FOR LIFE AND SKILLS FOR LIVING Importance of cars and driving for personal development Skills for self-control GOALS AND CONTEXT OF DRIVING Purpose. as individuals acquire experience. as well as knowledge of risk elements and a cognitive map of control equipment in the vehicle and how it behaves. direction and position Figure 2. 59 . and can be organised in a hierarchy that reflects the key purposes. but also through verbal and pictorial description or by imagining the course of traffic events (Keskinen et al.9). Hatakka.9: Hierarchical Levels of Driving Behaviour (after Keskinen. they tend to priortise conscious control of the vehicle over other elements of the driving experience. Hataaka and Katila (1992). 2004).
Mintz. age and gender on motor vehicle crash risk. 2007). Burns and Wilde (1995) found no relationship between collision history and personality when they studied sampled male taxi drivers in a small Canadian city. Peltzer and Renner (2003). Justification of driver experience hypotheses. frequently showing that they are lest frequently involved in motor vehicle crashes than other classes of drivers. Studies of crash predictors among professional drivers have been undertaken for over fifty years (e. One way to understand experience effects is to study occupations for which driving is an important work component. explained because adult identity is still under construction so life goals and living skills are still under development. taking risks and consuming alcohol or drugs.. was inversely correlated with driving experience and numbers of accidents witnessed. A simple measure of driving experience. and especially young male drivers. for instance. the number of years since a driving licence was first obtained. (2001) used the cognitive framework to explain the differing effects of experience. 1948. found that risk taking within a sample of 130 drivers of minibus taxis in the Pietersburg area of the Republic of South Africa.g. Young novice drivers. 1949. such as problems in vehicle handling skills.Laapotti et al. While motivational and differing skill levels are also important predictors of professional drivers’ crash risk.and medium-severity traffic violation penalties as unjust than are non-professional drivers (Rosenbloom & Shahar. Driving experience was considered a distal variable that would have an 60 . 2004). showed more problems than males connected to the lower cognitive levels of the driving hierarchy. Female novice drivers. Ghiselli & Brown. was used in this study. and that taxicab drivers are more likely to regard low. all of which were seen to reflect deficient self-control and lifestyle management abilities. showed more problems connected to showing off driving skills to peers. They found that young drivers failed in applying both lower and higher models of the hierarchy than did middle-aged drivers. many studies have focused on the effects of experience. 1954). Brown & Ghiselli. 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.
5. the more one is going to be exposed to traffic situations in which a crash could occur. 2002a). driving occurs (Dewar. First. and type of route where. and the traffic conditions to which they are exposed. the concept is much less well developed. crash risk is affected greatly by the time of day when. 1984). 282). there may be considerable random or systematic error in subjective reports about distance travelled (Elander et al. it is accepted that the more one travels. showed that the risk of crash involvement is five to ten times higher during late night 61 .2. Åkerstedt and Kecklund (2001). 2. Second. Based on research indicating that more experienced drivers tend to have fewer crashes (Lajunen & Summala. All of these will affect the likelihood of crash involvement. 1991). for instance. In individual differences research. 1971).effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. indirectly. 1986. 2001. Elander et al. with greater experience associated with safer self-reported behaviour. on crash and injury occurrence. the miles they drive. it was hypothesised that driving experience would have a significant effect on behaviour in traffic scores. Pelz & Schuman.2 Driving Frequency and Traffic Exposure Many authors have discussed the effect of traffic exposure on crash risk and outcomes (Evans. technical or legal changes relating to road safety.. Wilde. Duncan & Brown. but measuring exposure is not always as simple a matter as computing asking for an estimate of distance travelled per unit time (Evans. Generally. McKenna. 1984. The concept of risk exposure has been examined in some detail from the point of view of comparing regional crash rates over different periods to assess the effects of demographic. (1993) noted that: People vary in the time they spend on the road. 1993). Rothengatter. 1995. and the problem of taking adequate account of individuals’ exposure to risk is only beginning to be properly addressed (p.
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.. Mercer (1989) showed that. 2003). (1986). however. Lourens et al. Bina et al. Canada and Germany where a legal penalty point system is in place to track drivers’ violations and involvement in road crashes. After correcting for the number of kilometres driven. Williams & Shabanova. 2007. with the highest incidence being between 6:00 pm and midnight. Teoh & MCartt. 2007). as defined by Elander et al. Towner and Ward. In the present study. This was taken to be representative of traffic exposure. although much research does not (e. in countries like the USA. Ferguson. Christie. Odero et al.. there is little evidence that drivers are capable of reporting different categories of time or route conditions. Because of earlier trends reported by Evans (1984) and McKenna et al. Yet. it was hypothesised that higher levels of driving frequency would result in less risky behaviour in traffic. Evans (1991) and others. Justification of exposure hypotheses. female drivers came out higher in number of crashes and in some types of traffic violations. (1999) have argued that. In keeping with recommendations made by Elander et al. 62 . young male drivers were strongly over-presented in terms of both crash frequency and traffic-related fines. indirectly.g. 2007.hours than during the forenoon. (1993). nor are there valid category weightings that would allow the prediction of risk. 2006.. a simple measure of driving frequency was used as a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. on crash and injury occurrence. Cairns. (1997) reviewed published and unpublished reports on roadway crashes in developing countries from 1966 to 1994. the resulting ‘driver records’ in combination with exposure data turn out to be the best predictors of future crashes. and found that approximately one-third of all traffic injuries occurred during the night. 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. without correcting for annual mileage.
Holder & Levi.3. 15). people who attribute behaviour to an internal locus of control. believe that very few events are outside the realm of human influence and that even cataclysmic situations may be altered through human action.5. 2006. 1999). such that it could be possible for an individual to score high on all three (see Figure 2. 1981) extended this concept in two ways: first. In contrast.10).3.1 Locus of Control 2.. one to reflect the influence of fate or chance (C) and the second to reflect the influence of powerful others (P). 1975. Originally conceptualised by Rotter (1966. 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. 63 . or externals .1 Unidimensional and Multidimensional Constructs Locus of control refers to the expectancy that one’s personal actions will be effective to control or master the environment (Rice. or internals. Stanley & Burrows.2. and second.3 Psychological Variables 2. people are thought to vary on a continuum between the two extremes of external and internal locus of control. Based on this multidimensional conceptualisation. bipolar continuum along which individuals could be placed.1. she separated the externality dimension into two. Levenson (1975. Rotter’s (1966) original I-E conceptualisation of the locus of control construct viewed it as a unidimensional. 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. view most events as dependent on chance or controlled by powers beyond human reach. 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.5. 1991. 1990). Levenson constructed a scale has been used widely in studies of locus of control (e. she assumed that the three resulting dimensions were conceptually independent.5. Hyman. according to the strength of their tendencies toward making attributions of internal or external control.g.
They also tended to bet more on safe outcomes than did the more externally oriented subjects. E Unidimensional Model I Externalizers Individuals believe that what happens is determined by fate.10: Contrast between Rotter’s Unidimensional and Levenson’s Multidimensional Conceptualisations of Locus of Control 2. Liverant and Scodel (1960) studied betting preferences using a simple dice-throwing task.3. Multidimensional Model Low Internality High Low Externality . 2007) and has given rise to a number of other instruments measuring multi-dimensional locus of control.Luckner. They found that subjects with high internal control seemed to prefer intermediate probability bets or extremely safe bets over so-called long shots. 1989. a deity or higher power or other external circumstances Internalizers Individuals believe that what happens is the result of their own personal decisions and efforts. these results supported the idea that internals would be more cautious in their control efforts while externals would engage in riskier behaviour. According to Phares (1976).5. Sinha & Watson. 64 .Chance High Low Externality – Powerful Others High Figure 2. luck.2 Locus of Control and Driving Behaviour Very early studies examined a link between locus of control and risk taking.1.
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. 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. On the other hand. 1987). Guastello and Guastello (1986) used the Rotter (1966) locus of control scale and their own transitional instrument in a study of American college students. Iversen and Rundmo (2002) also failed to find an association with risky driving or crash involvement. Serious methodological problems may have plagued this study. If an individual views herself or himself as being responsible for both positive and negative outcomes. In a subsequent study. as Cronbach’s alpha values for the scales of their transitional instrument were below accepted criteria and scale content. Other authors explained an apparent link between external locus of control and crash risk on a motivational basis (Montag & Comrey. Dixey (1999) found relationships between road crashes and fatalist attitudes in Nigeria. only partially represented the original locus of control concept. but results have been inconsistent. Their results indicated that internals had been involved in fewer crashes than externals on their transitional scale but there was no such relation between crashes and scores on the Rotter scale. A great many studies have investigated the effects of locus of control on driving behaviour. According to Brown and Noy (2004). 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.More recent studies have examined the relationship between an external locus of control and risky behaviour within driving or workplace behaviour. however. believing that fate will achieve its goals no matter what the individual does (p. 1999). 65 . s/he will be more likely to take precautionary measures such as wearing a seat belt and being vigilant to roadway cues. however. 39). French & Chan.
(p. although internality was unrelated to DDB. it may not be of sufficient magnitude to be of value. Hoyt (1973) reported that internals reported wearing seat belts more often and experienced highway travel as more interesting and involving. 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). In a meta-analysis of information-processing. 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. On the other hand. aggressive and ordinary traffic violations and driving errors. when Lajunen and Summala (1995) gave Finnish university students a series of questionnaires that assessed driving abilities and personality.Although externals reported more risk taking this trend was not significant. personality and demographic/biographical predictors of vehicular involvement. Verwey and Zaidel (2000) observed that people scoring high on measures of external locus of control made more road departure errors than those scoring high on measures of with an internal locus of control. offences. The same driving skill scores were positively correlated with an internal locus of control. hostility was associated with worse DDB to a greater extent among drivers scoring low on internality than among drivers scoring high on internality. They found that. it strongly moderated the relationship between hostility and DDB. driving skills were negatively correlated with externality scores. That is. In a similar study investigating personality attributes and driving behaviour. Özkan and Lajunen (2005) found that internals reported a higher number of total crashes. cognitive. 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 . although scores on externality dimensions did not relate significantly to any of those dependent variables. Gidron. 1260). In a much earlier study. rather than examining its interaction with other predictors. (1991) argued that these equivocal results were due to overly simple research designs which tended to investigate direct effects of locus of control. Arthur et al.
Israel. Noy (1997).3.3 Locus of Control and Ethnicity Dyal (1984) argued that post-War geopolitical expansion and a growing interest in the role of attributions. Germany. as hypothesised. indicated that. 122). Richardson and Downe (2000) and others. Crittendon (1991) found that female university students in Taiwan were more 67 . India.5. Noting that Chinese culture. Japan. Italy. 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. while externality scores for Indian students were significantly lower than those in France. Life situations may be viewed as being largely determined by circumstances outside personal control (p. and the USA. Japanese students had significantly higher external scores than in all other countries. (1991). whereas Americans scored high on internal control and Chinese-Americans were somewhere in-between. In very early research. with situation-centred Confucian foundations. which is considered to be full of ambiguity. chance and fate are taken for granted in life. reinforcement and sociocultural processes created fertile ground for cross-cultural studies using the locus of control construct. Canada and Japan. complexity and unpredictability.behaviour can be better understood by adopting a more holistic approach in which interactions. Hsieh. 2. France. More recent research has continued to find differences in locus of control between cultures and between sub-groups within cultures. US-born Chinese and Caucasian Americans). This point had also been argued earlier by Arthur et al. after correction for differences in socioeconomic status. Shybut and Lotsof (1969) sampled three groups of high school students (Hong Kong Chinese.1. moderating and mediating relationships are investigated. Hong Kong Chinese students were more externally controlled on Rotter’s (1969) I-E scale. Their results.
Howard and Lim (2006) have offered research evidence related to cross-cultural differences in locus of control within Malay. He attributed this to the belief that dealing with widespread nepotism. skill and ability. Chinese and Indian populations.externally-controlled and more self-effacing than either American females or Taiwanese males. but all three groups differed from the sample drawn in China. all internal characteristics. 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. and this was provided as part of a larger study comparing Singaporean ethnic groups to a Chinese normative sample from the People’s Republic of China. Chinese of Malay extraction. 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. due largely to high scores on items measuring political ideology and social system control. In very early research. where no significant differences were found between those of Indian. although there were no differences in internality nor externality involving powerful others. Using an English version of the Cross-Cultural Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). This was very true for the locus of control variable. To the author’s knowledge. No published accounts of research conducted in Malaysia with regard to locus of control differences among members of Malay. a finding Carment interpreted as reflecting greater dependency on and conformity within the somewhat indulgent and closely-connected Indian family structure. Cheung. Indian students were more external than Canadians on personal control factors. Chinese and Indian ethnic groups were found. only Cheung. ingratiation and bribery found in India requires effort. 68 . At the same time. 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.
it was hypothesised that internality would have a negative association with unsafe behaviour in traffic. Personality traits closely aligned with given mood states might well be expected to have an impact on the performance on driving tasks. Ohberg. 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.5. Niméus. 2007). Träskman-Bendz & Alsén. on crash and injury occurrence. First. indirectly. (2003). 2005). Finally. Sinha & Watson. Given the strong research evidence suggesting an association between internal locus of control and less risky driving behaviour (Lajunen & Summala. Beresford & Neilly. 1995.Justification of hypotheses about locus of control. Özkan & Lajunen. locus of control was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. et al. In the present study. 2. Weissman. Pentilla and Lonnqvist (1997) studied all fatal car crashes in Finland from 1987 to 1991 and found that 5. it was hypothesised that locus of control would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. Based on the findings reported by Gidron et al. hopelessness has been consistently shown to be a predictor of suicidal intent (Beck.2 Hopelessness Rothengatter (2002) and Groeger (1997) have both noted the paucity of research on affect and driver behaviour. 1975.3. Fox & Klerman. 1973). anticipate a negative outcome to any attempts that may be made to attain the individual’s major objectives or goals (Beck. Kovacs and Weissman. 1997. Cases usually 69 . but there are two conceptual arguments for doing so. given the large number of studies indicating ethnic differences in locus of control (Crittendon. McMillan. 2007. Montag & Comrey. 1991. Hopelessness has not been previously studied as a predictor either of driving behaviour or of crash risk. 1987. without objective basis. while the two dimensions of externality would have positive associations. 1975). Gilbody. it was hypothesised that Chinese participants would tend toward higher externality scores while Indian participants would tend toward higher internality.9% could be classified as having an intentional suicidal component.
indirectly. investigated the relationship between hopelessness. hopelessness was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. finding that persons who perceived reinforcements to be a function of powerful others. In the present study. Selzer & Payne. 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. and negatively predicted by extraversion. found that the most commonly reported mental state among Finnish drivers dying in crashes classified as suicidal had been “depression” and “hopeless”. Second. 1974). Based on earlier findings about the relationship between depressive-suicidal states. in which hopelessness plays a significant part. usually when impaired by alcohol or drug use. have proposed that potentially self-destructive behaviours. for instance. 1976. 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. chance or fate not only expressed greater pessimism about the future but were more likely to report depressive states. 1962). They also classified a group of drivers whose highly negligent actions. Henderson. Breen and Lussier (1976). mental disorders and alcohol misuse. 1962). 1998. in fact. Very early on. assertiveness and positive emotion. Firestone & Seiden. in a more detailed study. hopelessness has been associated with personality and behavioural factors that have been shown to be good predictors of driver behaviour and crash risk. and crash risk (Ohberg et al.involved head-on collisions between two vehicles with a large weight disparity and victims had often suffered from life-event stress. on crash and injury occurrence. it was 70 . Chioqueta and Stiles (2005) showed that hopelessness in Norwegian university students was positively predicted by high scores in neuroticism and depression.. whose crashes had resulted from extreme risks. Several authors. including risky driving. locus of control and depression with university students in western Canada. Mendel. Justification of hopelessness hypotheses. luck. 1990. Hernetkoski and Keskinen (1998). 1997. Prociuk.
2006). 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. Chapman. 1999) have argued that there has been a marked increase in the frequency of aggressive incidents and anger-related crashes. Richards. It was hypothesised here that hopelessness would moderate the manner in which locus of control affected behaviour in traffic.. In a largely unrelated study. 71 . 2002. this concept became the basis for what is now known as the frustration-aggression hypothesis of aggressive driving. Barton and Malta.hypothesised that participants scoring high on a measure of hopelessness would be likely to engage in behaviour in traffic that was less cautious.3. including subjective feelings of stress. While media reports and some authors (James & Nahl. attention to the issue of aggressive driving has grown exponentially. 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. Wright & Crundall. 2. it is difficult to accurately assess whether the problem is becoming more common or whether greater visibility has been due to a growth in awareness and reporting (Galovski. 2002). Deffenbacher. which acts to counter the influence of normative moral codes and to increase people’s impulsive responses to stimuli as one such disinhibitory cue. 2000. Although uncertainty persists as to whether road aggression is actually increasing. and deindividuation. 2003.5. 1999. Demakakos. learned cognitive scripts. Filetti. 2000. physiological arousal. Wells-Parker et al.3 Aggression Since the 1980s. Lynch & Oetting. Koumaki. learned disinhibitory cues. Underwood. O’Connell (2002) has described the use of alcohol. Novaco (1991) proposed that driver aggression is produced when environmental triggers interact with a variety of predisposing factors. Chliaoutaks. & Darviri. Tzamalouka. Bakou. sparked by a number of highly publicised accounts of road rage and improved techniques for measuring anger and aggression in drivers. Malta & Blanchard. there is no shortage of evidence to suggest a consistent and reliable association between aggressive driving and motor vehicle crashes (Blanchard. Mizell.
Meichenbaum (1977) pioneered the use of cognitive restructuring. Bettencourt. Crowson. Groeger (2000). rather than a cause of. 163). it may equally be that the people involved would be aggressive in situations beyond driving – with driving being an opportunity for. Schwebel et al. More recently.which creates a sense of anonymity and diminished personal responsibility. Ellis. angry thinking and trait anger influenced aggressive behaviour only under conditions in which the individual was provoked. and frustration of goals that comprises the driving task in the modern world. through the use of self-statements. threat to own safety and self-eesteem. Snyder. 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. does indeed have all the ingredients that might give rise to increased levels of anger and hostility. (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. to better cope with stress and achieve behavioural change. raised the point that: It seems to me possible that the peculiar cocktail of personal challenge. lack of control over events. 1976. Shinar (1998) argued that the frustration-aggression hypothesis provided an appropriate model for aggressive driving. 1962). cultural driving norms and situational conditions. but needed to be expanded to account for the influence of personality factors such as Type A personality behaviour (TAPB). stress induced by time pressure. Benjamin and Valentine (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of studies assessing personality variables and aggressive behaviour. as another. Talley. They reported that trait aggressiveness and trait irritability influenced aggressive behaviour under both provoking and neutral conditions but that other personality variables. Houston. However. though. the display of aggression (p. such as TAPB. Kurylo and Poirier (1997) created the Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale to reflect the frequency 72 .
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. insecurity about status. it was hypothesised that aggression would have a negative effect on behaviour in traffic. Elofsson & Krakau. aggression was considered a distal variable that would have an effect on participants’ behaviour in traffic and. Later still. indirectly. Undén.6 2. 73 . al. James & Nahl.. 2002. Petrilli. Magnavita. Deffenbacher.with which individuals make cognitive statements reflecting aggressive sentiments. 1998. McKee. 2006). Dewar (2002b) noted that TAPB has been one of the variables most consistently linked to driving performance. Oetting and Swaim (2003) used the same approach to examine angry cognitions made by drivers under varying conditions of provocation. Lynch. Miyake. 1999. hostility and difficulty achieving states of relaxation (Ben-Zur. and specific content. Bettencourt et al. Originally identified by Friedman and Rosenman (1974). TAPB is characterised by a sense of time urgency. Kamada. Rice. Sani. Those authors used the instrument to assess hostility and negative affect within a population of veterans diagnosed with combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder (Crowson. Sato. Karlberg. 1981. It was also hypothesised. 1999). competitiveness. consistent with earlier research by Deffenbacher et al. on crash and injury occurrence. Carbone. In the present study. that the total amount. Based on the extensive research on the association between aggression and unsafe driving behaviour (Galovski et. Williams & Haney. impatience. 2. 2006. Narda.6. Justification of aggression-related hypotheses. 1999. Thurman. Kumashiro & Kume. aggression. Blumenthal. 2001). Frueh & Snyder. 1985). of hostile automatic thought would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. They found that perjorative labelling and vengeful or retaliatory thoughts correlated highly with self-reported aggressive driving. 2000. (2003).
however. 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. In a correlational study of British drivers. studied police officers in Italy. 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. however. Although there is some evidence as to the long-term stability of TAPB (Keltikangas-Jarninen. the Jenkins Activity Survey (Jenkins. Elander and French (1993) found that TAPB had a strong association with excessive driving speed. focused on the time urgency component 74 . for instance. tested drivers on a TABP questionnaire in 1993 and then tracked their driving behaviour to record crash history from 1994 to 2001. socio-professional category. alcohol consumption.000 employees of a French oil and gas company. 1990). 1989. They found a robust association between scores on a measure of TAPB and later serious crashes. 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. and drivers’ attitudes toward traffic regulations – when examining the association between motor vehicle crashes and Type A scores in a prospective study of 20. age. Karlberg et al.DeLorenzo and Sacco (1997). West. Nabi et al. similarly. Zzanski & Rosenman. violations and self-reported driving impatience in a sample of 54 American students. (2003) with respect to data collection time periods. (1998). category of vehicle. Consoli. Perry (1986) fond significant simple correations between scores on a commonly used measure of TAPB. it may have been flawed by methodological deficiencies discussed by af Wählberg (2003) and by Elander et al. where Type A drivers were 4. traffic exposure or driver gender controlled as variables. Chastang.2 times more likely to have an accident than others. driving style. particularly in driving situations that require prudence. Chiron. Lafont and Lagarde (2005). 1979) and number of accidents. Nabi. Raikkonen. was driving frequency. gender. did control for the effects of a range of potential confounding variables – annual mileage. In none of these studies.
1977). At the same time. The BIT scale was positively correlated with the student version of the Jenkins Activity Survey (SJAS. specifically measuring the effects of drivers’ usurpation of right-of-way (lane violations and reluctance to yield). ethnicity. freeway urgency (excessive speed choice). Of the four BIT factors.of TAPB that had the most significant influence on driving risks.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. 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). Papacostas and Synodinos concluded that: Type A/B behaviour is consistently related to only one of the four driving factors obtained by the BIT. they examined the influence of TAPB on a number of driving outcomes. Using an instrument with items at extreme ends of the Type A/B continuum. only externally-focused frustration was consistently correlated with Type A behaviour. Miles and Johnson (2003). In a subsequent study. Gender. driving exposure and the place where they had learned to drive all had direct effects on Type A results. with higher BIT scores reflecting a stronger Type A orientation. emphasising the four individual dimensions of behaviour in traffic rather than the composite BIT total score. Glass. on the other hand. stressed the relationship between Type A individuals and the tendency to engage in more aggressive acts while driving as the key factor in the relationship between TAPB and crashes.6. Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) reported several further analyses of their original data. 2. namely “externally-focused frustration”. then use of the Type A/B 75 . as measured by the student version of the SJAS. all four BIT factors significantly predicted participants’ self-reported driving characteristics. If all four BIT factors contribute to accident proneness.
Specifically. aggression and the amount and content of 76 . hopelessness. would be influenced by drivers’ psycho-social characteristics. it will not be sensitive to “usurpation of right-of-way” which is related to aggressive driving. the extent to which other personality factors influence the four components comprising behaviour in traffic was not investigated. At the present time. They argued that it would be preferable. 1988) attempt to relate scores on their BIT scale to crash frequency or injury. and “destination-activity orientation” which is possibly a cause of inattentive driving (p.construct as the basis of further investigation into the question of highway safety will provide only an incomplete picture. “freeway urgency’’ which manifests itself in speeding and frequent lane changing. In the present study. ethnicity. on one hand would have an effect on crash and injury occurrence and. locus of control. driving experience. participants’ behaviour in traffic was considered a proximal variable that. To the author’s knowledge. Similarly. gender and other demographic factors were shown to affect BIT subscales. 13). thought to be critical in the relationship between TAPB and motor vehicle crashes. on the other hand. did Papacostas and Synodinos (1985. 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. In neither of their studies. no further use of BIT scale has been reported in studies of driving safety. in studying the effects of Type A behaviour on safe driving patterns to use the BIT scale instead of measures of TABP because the latter tended to allow only for the direct measurement of Type A-related hostility and were often insufficiently sensitive to the effects of other components of the behaviour pattern on driving. including gender. that are measured by the BIT scale. though. Justification of BIT-related hypotheses. although ethnicity.
West et al. 2005. Further. 77 . freeway urgency and destination-activity orientation would each have positive effects on both crash and injury occurrence.hostile automatic thought.. 1986.. 1993) and. Nabi et al. 1985). Miles & Johnson. since the composite BIT score has been shown to be an accurate reflection of over-all Type A behaviour (Synodinos & Papacostas. Many studies have suggested that drivers’ TABP is a factor in motor vehicle crashes (Perry. since Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) found that all four component factors of BIT were related to driving characteristics. it was hypothesised that drivers’ scores on measures of usurpation of right-of-way. 2003. externally-focused frustration. it was hypothesised here that BIT total scores would have a positive effect on both crash and injury occurrence.
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. each of which sought to replicate and expand the previous one.1 Conceptualisation and the Research Framework Based on the discussion in the previous chapter. through their action on proximal variables (behaviour in traffic). 1B and 1C. each study explored the extent to which demographic. 78 . Study 1A investigated the effects of demographic (driver age. 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.CHAPTER 3 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 3. 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 3.1). the research model was developed and tested in studies 1A.3). aggression (see Figure 3. The research model was developed and tested over the course of three separate studies: Study 1: Units of analysis consisted of only automobile drivers Study 2: Units of analysis consisted of only motorcycle drivers Study 3: Units of analysis consisted of only taxicab drivers In Study 1. In Study 1C. with the addition of a third psychological variable. with the addition of a fourth psychological variable. using automobile drivers as the units of analysis. In Study 1B. hostile automatic thoughts (see Figure 3. driving and psychological variables were linked to each other and to self-reported driving behaviour. Then.2). 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. the present research attempted to support the notion that variables in the distal context (psychological factors) contributed to crashes and injuries.
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
a future directed information-processing bias or schema which functions to distort individuals’ subjective experience of external reality (Velting. affective.each of these dimensions independently and at the same time. 3. 25). Galovski et al (2006) and others have noted that the definitions of anger. motoric and verbal components (Sharkin. overlapping and ambiguous. 1994). hostility and aggression are often inconsistent. externality related to chance (C) and externality related to the influence of powerful others (P) was obtained.2. According to Farran et al (1995): Hopelessness constitutes an essential experience of the human condition. For each of the five studies undertaken. Weissman. aggression is regarded here as referring to the hostile behaviour that occurs as a result of it. 1988) and tends to manifest itself under antagonistic conditions (Novaco. and a behavioural process in which the person attempts little or takes inappropriate action (p. Lester and Trexler (1974). It functions as a feeling of despair and discouragement. a thought process that expects nothing. such that an individual might simultaneously believe that oneself and powerful others control an outcome. hopelessness was measured as a unidimensional construct. 3.5 Aggression Spielberger et al (1995). It has been accepted for a long time that aggression finds its 85 . consistent with the way the variable has been described by Beck (1987a) and Beck. For the purposes of the present research. cognitive. anger was defined as a negative internal state of physiological arousal and cognition that involves interactions between physiological. While Beck (1999) and others have reserved the term anger for the feeling that accompanies such an internal state.2. but not chance. a separate score for internality (I). In the present research. 1999).4 Hopelessness Hopelessness has been defined as a cognitive or motivational state characterised by negative expectancies.
In the present research.expression in a range of behavioural manifestations (Buss & Durkee. Vallières. Ellis (1962) and Meichenbaum (1977). (e) indirect aggression – the tendency to express aggressive impulses in actions that avoid direct confrontation. 3. (d) hostility – including attitudes of bitterness.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). the following variables were examined: (a) physical aggression – the tendency to use physical force when expressing anger or aggression. 2003. social alienation and paranoia. Deffenbacher. and. Oetting. expressed through the presence of irritability. Specifically. Bergeron & Vallerand. Lynch & Morris. but it has only relatively recently been considered in light of driving aggression (Deffenbacher et al. frustration. generally to the point where the needs or feelings of others cannot be taken into consideration. through fighting. 1997) – on the behaviour in traffic of drivers in Study 1C. were also investigated. taken as a sum of measures of each of the foregoing. (b) verbal aggression – the tendency to be unduly argumentative and to use quarrelsome and hostile speech in dealing with others in antagonistic situations. 2005). the three forms of hostile automatic thoughts were defined as: 86 . emotional lability and temperamental gesturing. (c) overt anger – the tendency to experience high levels of emotional arousal and a perceived loss of control. 1957. 1996). hitting or interpersonal violence.2. The present research examined the effects of a set of cognitive statements – described as hostile automatic thoughts (Snyder et al. The effects of participants’ total aggression.
being irritated by slow drivers) and of directive behaviours toward 87 . 1998). not allowing others to merge or overtake. 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. degraded or wished to be rid of another individual. 3. (b) derogation of others – cognitive self-talk that contained content which belittled.g. A global measure of selfreported driving tendencies.(a) physical aggression – cognitive self-talk that contained content indicating an intent or desire to violently attack.7 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) The present research attempted to determine the effects of variables related to the self-reported patterns of driving behaviour among car drivers. motorcyclists and taxicab drivers sampled in the five successive studies undertaken. (c) externally-focused frustration – consisting of emotional reactions to the actions of other drivers on the road (e. driving consistently in the fast lane and travelling above the speed limit.. frequent lane changing. hit or kill another individual. characterised by excessive impatience. the BIT score. (b) freeway urgency – including an expressed preference for freeway driving. competitiveness.. and an expressed preference for operating powerful vehicles. hostility and time pressure (Karlberg et al. and.2. (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).
the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. travel frequency.1 Research Design of the Study Study 1A Specifically. Then. the influence of driving experience. In the resulting measure of this variable.3 3. three demographic variables (driver age. a “1” was scored if the participant reported a crash and a “0” was scored if the participant did not report a crash. Then..8 Crash Occurrence Participants reported whether or not they had experienced a motor vehicle crash.2. 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. within the preceding twelve months and provided details about the nature of the crash. (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. and.2. urging others to move faster or out of the way by sounding the horn). while driving. to the extent of inattention conditions. In the resulting measure of this variable. the extent to which self-reported BIT of automobile drivers predicted crash and injury occurrence was assessed while controlling the effects of driving experience and the drivers’ self-reported travel frequency. 88 .g. 3.9 Injury Occurrence Participants also indicated whether they had been forced to seek medical treatment for an injury incurred during the reported crash. to contemporaneous roadway and traffic 3. in Study 1A.them (e. 3. gender and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) on BIT was tested.
3. Finally. Figure 3. the interrelationships between the demographic variables. 3. three demographic variables (driver age. gender and ethnicity) and four psychological variables (locus of control. 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. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. (b) the moderating effect of locus 89 .2 Study 1B While again controlling the effects of driving experience and drivers’ self- reported travel frequency. the influence of driving characteristics. the moderating effect of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT was tested. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.2 illustrates the research design for Study 1B. Then. Finally. the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Then.3. travel frequency. Figure 3. the mediating effect of BIT on the relationship between psychological factors and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on BIT was tested. travel frequency.psychological variables (locus of control and hopelessness) and BIT were examined. Then.1 illustrates the research design for Study 1A. In this study. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. two moderating effects were tested: (a) the moderating effects of hopelessness on the relationship between locus of control and BIT.3. In this study. In Study 1B. hopelessness and aggression) on BIT was tested.3 Study 1C In Study 1C. Then. and (b) the moderating effect of locus of control on the relation between aggression and BIT. hopelessness. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. three demographic variables (driver age. the influence of driving characteristics. gender and ethnicity) and three psychological variables (locus of control.
3. using a sample that indicated motorcycles as their primary mode of transportation. 90 . Variables and analyses in Study 2 were the same as those carried out in Study 1A. Two measures of experience were included: (a) driving experience.4 illustrates the research design for Study 3. First. This was justified for three reasons. the effects of both measures of experience were controlled and the extent to which self-reported BIT predicted crash and injury occurrence in automobile drivers was assessed. Finally. 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 3.1 illustrates the research design for Study 2. Figure 3.of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT.3 illustrates the research design for Study 1C. the psychological variables and BIT were examined. and (b) taxi experience. Figure 3. 3. and (c) the moderating effect of hostile automatic thoughts on the relationship between aggression and BIT. the interrelationships between the demographic variables.3. or the length of time they had been licensed to operate a taxicab. the influence of experience. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested. Figure 3. Then. Finally.4 Study 2 The research design for Study 1A was replicated. In Study 3. or the length of time they had held a valid automobile operator’s licence. the mediating effect of the BIT on the relations between psychological variables and crash occurrence and injury occurrence was tested.5 Study 3 The final study used a sample of on-duty taxicab drivers. three demographic variables (driver age and ethnicity) and two psychological variables (locus of control and aggression) on BIT was tested. Then.3. the moderating effect of locus of control on the relationship between aggression and BIT was assessed.
2.3: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score 91 .1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. a risk that would have been unethical to impose both on the drivers and on the research assistants who were collecting the data.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.given that data were collected during in situ interview and testing sessions with drivers during a rolling trip from point to point through Kuala Lumpur streets.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2. 3.1. Third.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. limitations were imposed on administration time by driver willingness to participate and by research cost considerations.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.4:Destination-Activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H18.104.22.168: 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 H2.2.1. 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.4 Formulation of Hypotheses Based on the conceptualisation and research framework.1: Research Hypotheses STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 H1: Behaviour in traffic will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1. Gender was not included as a demographic variable in Study 3 because all taxicab drivers in the sample were male.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1. instruments employed to measure hopelessness and hostile automatic thoughts used language and response formats not conducive to verbal administration procedures.1. Second. potentially raising questions of reliability and validity.2: Travel frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.1.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1. the following fifteen hypotheses and sixty sub-hypotheses were formulated: Table 3.2: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.
4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation 92 .2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H11.2: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.3.3: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others Y Y Y Y Y Y H5: Demographic variables will influence hopelessness H5.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H9: Hopelessness will moderate the locus of control-BIT Relationship H9.4: Hopelessness will have positive influence on Destination-Activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway Urgency H7.3: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality 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 H22.214.171.124: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H7.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.3: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H126.96.36.199: Gender will influence Aggression H10.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Powerful-Other)-BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.1: Ethnicity will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality(Chance)-BIT relationship H9.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Age will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.2.2: Ethnicity will influence Hopelessness H5.1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relationship H9.3: 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 score H8.3.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.2: Ethnicity will influence Aggression H10.1.2: Gender will influences Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.Table 3.1.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y H4: Demographic variables will influence locus of control H4.3: Age will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6.1: Age will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.
2: Externality(Chance) will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. Data were collected during three consecutive trimesters. using the same procedures as in Study 1.3: 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 H13.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT H14. within a 14-month period.3: Thoughts of Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile automatic thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile automatic thoughts will have a positive influence on Behaviour in Traffic H14.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12. those from the second round of data collection were included in Study 1B.3: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Note: Y=YES 3. Only participants with a valid driving licence who had indicated that a car was the mode of transportation they used most of the time when they travelled were included. Participants from the first round of data collection were included in Study 1A.1 (continued) STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 Y Y Y H12: Locus of control will moderate the aggression-BIT relationship H12.5 3.1 Methods of Data Collection and Analysis The Sample Participants in Study 1 were undergraduate students at a private university in peninsular Malaysia. with psychological tests and inventories administered to groups of students during lecture sessions.2: Thoughts of the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Ethnicity will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.1: Thoughts of Physical aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15.5. registered in a freshman course offered within the Faculty of Management. and those from the third round of data collection were included in Study 1C.1: Gender will have a positive influence on 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 . Participants in Study 2 were undergraduate students at the same private university.Table 3.
.2. “ When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. For inclusion in the study. I try to urge its driver to move 94 . although results were used to demonstrate teaching points related to the syllabus at a point later in the trimester. with one of the items in each pair written to measure a TABP response and the other a contradictory statement (e.5. Stokals & Campbell.5.g. Novaco. consistent with of a Type A Behaviour Pattern (TAPB) when driving (see Appendix A). Participants were recruited during a curb-side introduction of the study by one of a group of four research assistants. In all cases. during a point to point trip. Synodinos and Papacostas (1985) developed 26 pairs of two-alternative items. This sample was combined from all three rounds of classroom data collection. Participants were provided with an opportunity to receive a debriefing report about the results of the study by e-mail and/or.1 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) Scale This 52-item measures time-urgent behaviour. 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. participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured.time when they travelled. 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. Drawing from the earlier Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 were not remunerated. Data collection took place within the taxicab. 1978).2 Research Instruments 3. 3. by postal mail. while participants were driving. Participants in Study 3 were taxicab drivers in the Kuala Lumpur area. in the case of Study 3 participants. Stokols. all of whom possessed a valid driving licence and a commercial permit for the operation of a taxicab. Participants in Study 3 received the meter or negotiated fare for the trip.
80.2. Usurpation of right-ofway No.” “I often find myself checking the time while driving to work.” II. Their analysis revealed four dimensions.91) were found to be internally consistent.” “When a motor vehicle cuts in front of me. Six of the items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. On each form.” “I get extremely irritated when I am travelling behind a slow moving vehicle. Freeway urgency 14 III. then the item of the pair representing the opposite end of the continuum was placed in Form B and vice versa. In a later study. as indicated in table 3. I just wait for a while until it moves”) for a total of 52 item stems. to school or to an appointment with someone.on” versus “When a traffic light turns green and the car in front of me doesn’t get going immediately. 20 items are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “most like me” to “least like me”. such that if the TABP alternative of an item pair was placed in Form A.” “While travelling to work (or to school).2: Dimensions of the BIT scale Factor I. with a coefficient alpha of . Items in Form A and Form B are presented in random order. based on a principal components analysis of earlier-reported data. 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. I usually think about what I have to do when I get there. Externally-focused frustration 6 IV. Synodinos and Papacostas reported that Form A and Form B (which correlated . Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) provided additional psychometric parameters of the BIT scale.” “I often blow my horn at someone as a way of expressing my frustration. Table 3. I try to move that lane as soon as possible.” “On a clear highway. Destination-activity orientation 8 Total 52 95 . I usually feel like pushing them off the road.” “I usually get upset at drivers who do not signal their driving intentions. Items were presented in two alternate forms (Form A and Form B).
ranging from +3 (“agree strongly”) to –3 (“disagree strongly”). it’s usually because I worked hard for it”. It contains three 8-item sub-scales that measure perceptions about the level of control exercised over the events and circumstances in their lives.Certain items in the original American version were re-worded to make them relevant to the Malaysian context and driving jargon. High scores on the externality-chance (C) scale indicate that respondents expect expect chance forces or luck to have control over their lives. A sample item is “I have often found that what is going to happen will happen”.2. 96 .5. I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power”. 3. High scores on the externality-powerful-others (P) scale indicate that respondents expect that powerful others exert a high degree of control over their lives. passing lane were changed from “left lane” to “right lane” and the word “pass” was replaced with “overtake”. 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 “miles per hour” were changed to “kilometres per hour”. References to the faster. A sample item is “Although I might have good ability. The phrase “cross-junction” was added to items pertaining to behaviour at intersections. Participants scored all 24 items on a 6-point scale.2 Levenson Locus of Control Scale This widely-used questionnaire is based on Levenson’s (1981) multidimensional view of locus of control. References to the “gas pedal” were replaced by “accelerator”. High scores on the internality (I) scale indicate that respondents expect to have a high degree of control over their own lives. A sample item is “When I get what I want.
Each of the 20 statements is scored 1.” “I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back. 1993. or 0.3 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.” “I let my anger show when I do not get what I want. Eleven items are keyed true to indicate pessimism about the future.2.” “I get into fights more than most people. 2005.” “At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode. a sample item of which is “I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm”.” 97 . Participants indicate a response on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all like me”. High internal consistency has been reported across a range of samples (Benzein & Berg. hostility and indirect aggression (see Table 3. A total aggression score can be calculated from summed item responses. and five subscales measure physical aggression. I may mess up someone’s work. of items 8 5 7 8 6 34 Sample Items: “At times I can’t control the urge to hit someone. if not. 1982. I might give him or her the silent treatment. 9 are keyed false to indicate optimism about the future. Durham. 1996). 1974). High scores are taken to indicate a generally pessimistic view of the future and a high degree of hopelessness. Table 3. verbal aggression. I may tell them what I think of them.5.3.” “I often find myself disagreeing with people.2. anger. 5 = “completely like me”) that best represent how well the item describe them.” “If I’m angry enough. Beck et al. 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”.” “When someone really irritates me. Of the 20 true-false statements. if endorsed.4 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) This questionnaire is a 34-item scale measuring constructs related to the expression of aggression.3). Item scores are summed to yield a total score ranging from 0 to 20. 3.” “At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life. Tanaka et al.5.3: The Five Subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire Subscale Physical Aggression (PHY) Verbal Aggression (VER) Anger (ANG) Hostility (HOS) Indirect Aggression (IND) Total No.” “When people annoy me.
1996). 1997.2.88 for the five subscales (Buss & Warren.71 to . Williams. Cascardi & Pythress.” Participants responded on a 5point Likert-type scale (1 = “not at all”. 5 = “all the time”). High scores on a sub-scale indicated that type of hostile thinking had occurred to the participant frequently.91 for physical aggression. ethnicity and history of motor vehicle crashes and injuries.4: The Three Subscales of the Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) Scale Factor Physical aggression Derogation of others Revenge Total No. Each item includes a statement expressing some hostile thought and respondents are asked to indicate “whether that thought (or one like it) has occurred to you about another driver when you have been driving. 98 .92. 2000) and discriminant validity (Archer & Haigh.” “I just want to hurt this person as bad as s/he hurt me.” “I want to get back at this person.6 Personal Information Form (PIF) Participants also completed a 4-page questionnaire recording personal information.88 and . 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. 1997. Table 3.5.5 Hostile Automatic Thoughts (HAT) This 30-item self-report index measures the frequency of recurring hostile thoughts. 2000). age. with coefficient alpha values of . Shapiro. Snyder et al. I’d kill this person!” “I’d like to knock his/her teeth out” “What an idiot!” “This person is a loser.4).5. Three factors – physical aggression. Previous studies have established high levels of concurrent validity (Harris. Boyd.94 for the total aggression scores and ranging from . 3.High internal consistency has been reported with a coefficient alpha of . . Questions included details about the participant’s licensing and driving background. (1997) reported high internal consistency for all three sub-scales. derogation of others and revenge respectively.2. gender.” 3.
Participants were informed about the study and invited to participate on a voluntary basis.3. BHS. BIT scale. Levenson. AQ and HAT. 99 . (c) the last instrument in the package was the opposite for of the BIT from the one presented second. BHS. Levenson and BIT scale. and (f) not spend too much time on any one answer. BIT scale and AQ. BHS. between the two forms of the BIT. Study 1B: PIF. A brief written description of the purpose of the research and general instructions (see Appendix B) was distributed. (d) the remaining instruments used in that particular study were presented. After the briefing period. upon request. the instruments were presented in the following order: (a) the PIF was the first one in the package. In studies 1 and 2. (b) give honest answers that described themselves rather than putting the “best things to say”.6 3.6.1 Procedure Studies 1 and 2 Data collection took place within a classroom or lecture hall during a regularly- scheduled class periods. Instructions advised the participants to (a) answer all questions on each questionnaire. Study 1C: PIF. in random order. (d) read instructions for each questionnaire very carefully and complete them in the order they were distributed. packages of research instruments were distributed as follows: Study 1A: PIF. Participants were provided with up to 60 minutes to complete the scales but in no cases did the average administration time exceed 45 minutes. Participants were assured of confidentiality and were de-briefed. (c) not discuss answers with others as they were completing the questionnaires. Levenson. with an e-mail summary of results. (b) the second instrument was either Form A or Form B of the BIT scale. (e) put down the first response that came into their mind.
provided assurance of confidentiality and secured participation. BIT.3. AQ and Levenson scales. All four research assistants spoke fluent English and Bahasa Malaysia. approached at a taxi stand or booked over the telephone.0. analyses of variance (ANOVA).7 Analysis of the Data Data collected were entered and processed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS for Windows. 8. aged 22 to 24 years. AQ and HAT to determine validity using LInear Structural RElations software (LISREL. four female final-year undergraduate students. Single-word substitutions in items were made in English or the driver’s first language if comprehension difficulties arose. Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were performed on the BIT. Over the course of the trip. with prior research experience were retained to assist in the study. For safety reasons. rel. Independent-sample t-tests. with the remaining instruments administered in random order. 2002). The PIF was always administered first. Data collection took place in taxicabs. each research assistant hired a taxicab to drive to some location elsewhere in the Kuala Lumpur area. Two to four times daily. Reliability coefficients of all instruments were calculated using SPSS. rel.2 Study 3 For study 3.5. data collection was confined to times between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm. 3. Specific statistical tests have been summarised in Table 3. This section provides a brief example of each one and details its use in the present research. as well. 100 .6. Taxis were flagged down at roadside. Levenson Locus of Control scale. 2004).5. with the team of research assistants meeting regularly three times each week to calibrate administration procedures. as well as at least two additional Malaysian languages. linear and multiple regression analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. the research assistant informed the taxicab driver about the study. At initial contact. 13. research assistants verbally administered the PIF. Structural equation models and path analyses were estimated using the same version of LISREL.
3: Externality (Powerful-Other) is positively related to Hopelessness Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Hopelessness on BIT H7.1: Gender influence the level of BIT H3.3: 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: 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 H4.4: Hopelessness influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression 101 .1: Internality is negatively related to hopelessness H6.Table 3.5: Statistical Methods for Hypothesis Testing Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of BIT on Accident Involvement H1.1: Gender influence the Locus of Control H4.2: “Frequency of traveling” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Gender influence the level of Hopelessness H5.3: 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 H6.2: Externality (Chance) is positively related to Hopelessness H6.3: “Access to a motor vehicle” influence the level of BIT Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on BIT H3.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of BIT H3.1: The level of BIT influence the crash occurrence H1.1: Hopelessness influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H7.2: Hopelessness influence the level of Freeway Urgency H7.2: The level of BIT influence the crash injury Logistic Regression Logistic Regression The Direct Effect of Driving characteristics on BIT H2.1: “Length of having driving licence” influence the level of BIT H2.2: Ethnicity background influence the level of Hopelessness H5.
3: The higher Externality (Powerful-Other).3: Hopelessness moderates the Externality (Powerful-Other)-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on Aggression H10.4: Aggression influence the level of Destination-activity Orientation Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Aggression on BIT GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Moderating Effect of Locus of Control on AggressionBIT Relation H12.1: Hopelessness moderates the Internality-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression H9.1: Aggression influence the level of Usurpation of Right-of Way H11.1: Internality moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Age influences the level of Aggression Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance The Direct Effect of Aggression on BIT H11.2: The higher Externality (Chance).1: Gender influences the level of Aggression H10. the lower the BIT level H8.2: Externality(Chance) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation H12.3: Aggression influence the level of Externally-focused Frustration H11.2: Hopelessness moderates the Externality(Chance)-BIT relation H9.2: Ethnicity influences hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Externality (Powerful-Other) moderates the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression The Direct Effect of Demographic Factors on HAT H13.2: Aggression influence the level of Freeway Urgency H11.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of Locus of Control on BIT H8.1: Gender has a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.3: Age has a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts Independent Sample t-Test Analysis of Variance Analysis of Variance 102 .Table 3. the higher the BIT level Additional Analysis: Linear Regression Linear Regression Linear Regression GLM Univariate Analysis of Variance The Interaction Effect of Ethnicity and Locus of Control on BIT The Moderating Effect of Hopelessness on Locus of ControlBIT Relation Multiple Linear Regression H9. the higher the BIT level H8.1: The higher the Internality.2: Ethnicity background influences the level of Aggression H10.
1 Independent-sample t-tests Generally. When significant differences were observed. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for male and female drivers.Table 3. 2000). In the present research. In the present study. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) differed for drivers with different ethnic backgrounds.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression have a positive influence on BIT H14.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others have a positive influence on BIT H14.1: Thoughts of Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation H15. post hoc analyses were carried out using the Scheffé method (Klockars & Hancock.7. locus of control.2 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ANOVA is used to compare means for more than two groups.2: Thoughts of Derogation-of-Others will moderate the AggressionBIT relation H1353: Thoughts of Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relation Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression 3. locus of control. hopelessness. t-tests were used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.5 (continued) Data Analysis Methods The Direct Effect of HAT on BIT H14. 103 . 3. hopelessness. ANOVA was used to determine whether participants’ scores on psychological variables (BIT.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 H15.7. t-tests are used to compare the means of two groups.
For instance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) and behaviour in traffic (BIT). hopelessness. linear regression was applied to examine the relationship between psychological variables (locus of control.7. In the present research. hopelessness.7. multiple regression analysis was used to test whether internality (I).7. 3. externality-chance (C) and externalitypowerful-others (P) have an effect on hopelessness.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). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) on behaviour in traffic (BIT). 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. In the present research. 3.3. GLM univariate analysis of variance was used to determine whether there was an interaction effect between ethnic background and psychological factors (locus of control. first P scores were entered into the regression equation. 104 .5 Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis aims to examine if there is a relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables. Application of multiple regression analysis involves more than one single independent variable. second. R-square and coefficient values were then estimated to determine the significance of the moderating effect of hopelessness. the products of P x hopelessness scores were added into the regression equation. In the present research. Also. It is useful for analysis of variance models with one or more factor variables or covariates and a single dependent variable. if so. the moderating effects of the variables were tested using hierarchical regression methods.
7. the purpose of which was to distinguish the distal and proximal contextual factors related to crash outcomes. “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. SEM was carried out. 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). logistic regression. using LISREL. 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. each of the two outcome variables (crash occurrence and injury occurrence) was framed as a binary variable.7 Structural Equation Modelling. “1” was scored if a crash injury had occurred and “0” if no crash injury had occurred. 710). Path coefficients were calculated to demonstrate correlates of unsafe driving according to their contextual proximity to crash and injury occurrence. That is. The result was a measurement model described as a contextual-mediated model. these variables were controlled as covariates in the logistic regression equation. Linear or multiple regression seek to measure the degree of influence that variables will have on a dependent variable. The validity of this measurement model was dependent on its goodness-of-fit and on the construct validity of its component variables. Goodness-of-fit indicates how 105 . to (a) assess the validity of the instruments. 3. on the other hand. In the present research. seeks to determine the odds that an event will or will not occur.3. Since driver experience and travel frequency were expected to have an influence on the outcome variables. In the present research. and (b) examine the interrelationships among variables included in the research design. as well as between several latent constructs” (p.7.
1998) – presently exists. than anyone would want to report” (Maryuma. the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the root mean square residual (RMR). For Study 1C. 2006. additional measures were used to compare the relative fit of two models under consideration. the estimated covariance matrix is compared mathematically to the actual observed covariance matrix to provide an estimate of model fit. Incremental fit measures included the comparative fit index (CFI). (1988). the χ2/df ratio the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). including: (1) two absolute indexes. 745). the estimated covariance matrix (∑k) and the actual covariance matrix (S) would be the same. but a wide array of tests of the overall fit of SEM models – “more. Thus. According to Marsh et al. p. the model fit compares the theory to reality as represented by the data. 1998). If a researcher’s theory were perfect. the absolute fit measures included the χ2 statistic. Absolute fit measures are a direct measure of how well the model specified by the researcher reproduces the researcher’s data. the better the model is said to fit. The closer the values of these two matrices are to each other. Once a researcher’s theory is used to specify a model from which the parameters are estimated. the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) and the expected cross- 106 . Incremental fit measures assess how well a specified model fits relative to some alternative baseline model. The fundamental measure of fit is the chi-square (χ2) statistic (Byrne. (Hair 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. In the present research. in fact.
3. (2006) have highlighted that for sample size greater than 250 (with a number of observed variables less than 12). However.7. 1998). when the ratio of χ2 to df yields a value of less than 3. the parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI). For a sample size less than 250 (and with number of observed variables that is less than 12).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. an insignificant p-value is expected.00 in which values greater than . the ratio indicates a good fit. The probability value associated with χ2 indicates the likelihood of obtaining a χ2 value that exceeds the χ2 value when null hypothesis (specific matrices for the model under study is valid) is true (Byrne. the closer the fit between the hypothesized model (established under the null hypothesis). 2006). and a measure of parsimony fit. RMSEA values can range from zero to 1. an insignificant p-value can result in good fit.7.2 Degrees of freedom (df) The df measure the amount of mathematical information available to estimate the model parameters and are calculated based on the number of unique covariances and variances in the observed covariance matrix (Hair et al. the normed fit index (NFI). 107 .. 3. Carmines and McIver (1981) have noted that. 112). one incremental index. 3. 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.0.7. the higher the probability associated with χ2.validation index (ECVI).7.10 indicate poor fit. with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. pp. Thus. fit the population covariance matrix if it were available” (Byrne. 1998.7. Hair et al. 2006).1 Chi-Square (χ2).7.
CFI is an improved version of the normed fit index.00.00. 108 .7. Bentler & Bonnet. 3.00 being indicative of good fit.10 usually suggests a poor fit of the data for the model. with higher values indicating better fit. and a model with perfect fit would produce an NFI of 1. Values range from zero to 1. 3.7. 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 with value closes to 1.6 Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI.7.7. an RMR greater than . it is known as one of the most widely used indices (Hair et al.5 Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) The GFI can range from zero to 1. Tanaka & Huba.Root mean square residual (RMR) is another badness-of-fit measure. Thus. but AGFI values are typically lower than GFI values in proportion to model complexity. The index can range from zero to 1..7.7. 3. The AGFI penalises more complex models and favours those with a minimum number of free paths.90 is usually associated with a model that fits well. Since the CFI is insensitive to model complexity.00. the normed fit index (NFI. 2006). 1980) represents a ratio of the difference in the χ2 value for the fitted model and a null model divided by the χ2 value for the null model. The index ranges between zero and 1.00 with value more than .
. James. In such cases. considering its fit relative to its complexity. 3.3.7 Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI) The expected cross-validation index (ECVI. p. Although values range from zero to 1. 109 . a PGFI value is meant only to be used in comparing it to another model’s PGFI value” (Hair et al. A parsimony fit measure is improved by a better fit and/or a simpler model which..7. it is most commonly used when comparing the performance of one model to another. 750). It should be noted that. in this case. 2006. 1982) uses the parsimony ratio to adjust the GFI in order to compare two models. 1994). The parsimony ratio is calculated as the ratio of degrees of freedom used by a model to the total degrees of freedom available (Marsh & Balla. it takes into account the actual sample size and the difference that could be expected in another sample. based on the combination of fit and parsimony represented by the index. and the model with the higher PGFI is considered preferable.7. Like other parsimony fit indices. 1989) is an approximation of goodness-of-fit that the estimated model would achieve in another sample of the same size Based on the sample covariance matrix. Browne & Cudeck.7. Values range between zero and 1. 2006). means a model with fewer estimated parameter paths (Hair et al. Mulaik & Brett. “a PGFI taken alone is not a useful indicator of a single model’s fit. the model with the higher ECVI value is generally regarded as presenting a better fit.00. The parsimony goodness-of-fit index (PGFI. The ECVI also takes into account the number of estimated parameters for a given model.8 Parsimony Goodness-of-Fit Index (PGFI) A third class of measures is sometimes recognised as the parsimony indices. designed specifically to provide information about which model among a competing set of models is best.7.00.
The normal distribution is spoken of as mesokurtic. the distribution is said to be negatively skewed (Ferguson. the distribution of test scores to the normal distribution. it is said to be positively skewed. When p-values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic are greater than our α=. 2000). It determines whether the scores in the sample can reasonably thought to have come from a population having the theoretical distribution (Siegel. 37). Many parametric statistics assume that variables are distributed approximately normally and SPSS calculates values for skewness and kurtosis to assist in determing 110 .9 Skewness and Kurtosis Skewness refers to the symmetry or asymmetry of a frequency distribution. p.7. 1976).8 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-Sample Test The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is concerned with the degree of agreement between the distribution of a set of sample values (or observed scores) and some specified theoretical distribution. 1956). in this case. the larger frequencies being concentrated toward the high end of the variable and the smaller frequencies toward the low end. If the opposite holds. “It is conventional to speak of a distribution as leptokurtic if is more peaked than … the normal distribution. and platykurtic if it is less peaked. In this case. then it is possible to conclude the the data do not violate the normality assumption (Carver & Nash.05. Kurtosis refers to the flatness or peakedness of one distribution in relation to another. 3. 1976.7. which means that it falls between leptokurtic and platykurtic distributions” (Ferguson. 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.3. the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess whether there was a significant departure from normality in the distribution of variable scores.
Barrett & Morgan. A commonly used guideline is that. Marcoulides & Hershberger. the variable is at least approximately normal (Leech. 2005. 111 .normality of variable distributions. if skewness and kurtosis less than ±1. 1997).
4.6% 12.5% 57.1 Description of the Samples Age.13 years (SD = 1. descriptive statistics are presented and the results of hypothesis testing are reported.6% 15.9% 23.3% 8.1% 121 22.4% 146 14. Then.6% 82 15. It begins with a discussion of reliability and validity tests of the instruments.1% 34.1% 536 100% 54.1).9% 977 100% 100% Female Total 112 . Thus 977 participants were included in the analysis.5% MalaysianIndian 64 14.1 4.9% Total 441 100% 45.9% 14.5% 27. with results of these tests reported in this chapter.CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter presents the results of the research. Gender and Ethnicity Participants were 992 undergraduate students at an English-language Malaysian university. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 29 years. Table 4. 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. The contextual mediated model was tested using (1) regression analysis (SPPS) and (2) structural equation modelling (LISREL).1. with a mean age of 20.4% 269 27.5% Ethnicity MalaysianChinese 229 51. A contextual mediated model showing interrelationships between variables is introduced.4% 333 62.1: 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 33.5% 6.55).1% 562 57. Thirteen of the participants did not complete all the questionnaires and two participants completing questionnaires reported that they did not have driving licences.
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. range from 18 to 29).89 years (SD = 1. followed by Malay (27.Female participants (approximately 55 per cent) slightly out-numbered males.35.25 years (SD = 1. 113 . 122 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the motorcycle comprised the sample. with a mean age of 19. In Study 2. with a mean age of 20.5 per cent).43 years (SD = 1. 149 taxicab drivers participated.9 per cent).1) showed that most of the drivers were female Malaysian-Chinese. A crosstabulation between gender and ethnicity (see Table 4. Thus.68. range from 18 to 27). with a mean age of 20. In Study 1C.01 years (SD = 1. In Study 3.5 per cent) and Malaysian-Indian (14. 301 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.53.63. In Study 1B. with a mean age of 20. range of 18 to 26). 302 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample. Malaysian-Chinese represented the highest number of participants (57. range from 18 to 25). In Study 1A. 252 undergraduate students who had indicated their primary mode of transportation to be the automobile comprised the sample.
responses from 133 taxicab drivers were included in data analysis. SD = standard deviation 4.2: Age.7 4.68 1.19 S.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 .43 19. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 5. they hailed from across the country (see table 4. The mean age was 43.2. Table 4.4% of the sample. Johor or Perak made up 53.35 1.5 114 .53 1.1 6. range from 23 to 73).1.25 43.5 8.D. 1.65.3% of the sample.89 20. Table 4. Descriptive data for each sample are provided in Table 4.63 11.3: 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 % 12.9 2. Kuala Lumpur.01 20.2 7. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor. 1B and 1C were all students at a single Malaysian university.2 Geographic Distribution of Samples in Study 1 Although participants in Studies 1A. 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 20.3).3 11.19 years (SD = 11.
0 7.1.4: States from Which Study 2 Participants Had Acquired Their Original Motorcyclists’ Licenses N Johor Kedah Kelantan Kuala Lumpur Melaka Negeri Sembilan Pahang Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 17 9 1 11 9 5 11 13 14 2 2 3 18 7 122 % 13.0 10.6 2. Perak or Penang made up 50.1.2 2.4 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 3 Participants in Study 3 were all professional taxicab operators who had been licensed to drive their vehicles commercially within Kuala Lumpur.2 17.7 11. Participants who had received their driving licenses in Selangor.9 7. Participants from East Malaysia comprised 4.8 11. As the sample was 115 .1 9.8 5.7 3.4). Table 4.Penang Perak Perlis Sabah Sarawak Selangor Terengganu 67 102 6 27 19 147 31 855 7. but again they held licenses from various states (see table 4.4 4.4 0.5 14.5 1.3 Geographic Distribution of the Sample in Study 2 Participants in Study 2 were all students at a single Malaysian university.2 3.9% of the sample.6 1.8 9.1% of the sample.9 0.7 100 4.6 100 4.
Sekaran (2000) offered a similar definition in which the reliability of a measure indicates the stability and consistency with which the instrument measures a concept and helps to assess the “goodness” of the measure. This statistic reflects the consistency of respondents’ answers compared to all the items in a measure (Sekaran. reliability was measured using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. 1978).5). the higher is the internal consistency of the measure. The closer Cronbach’s Alpha is to 1.1 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.2. A Cronbach’s Alpha of . 116 .2 4. In the present research. no attempt was made to determine the geographic location in which drivers had originally received noncommercial drivers’ licenses. 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. 2000).intended to be representative of Kuala Lumpur taxicab drivers. 4. 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.
718 .740 .756 .715 .701 .786 .737 .701 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 117 .749 .890 .703 .906 .720 .910 .881 α .747 .827 .738 .824 .739 .742 .810 .715 .784 .768 Not Applicable Not Applicable .720 .782 .830 .904 .772 α . of Item α Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle Drivers (student sample) Study 3 (N=133) Taxicab Drivers α .887 .730 .817 .735 .707 .Table 4.798 .702 .740 .788 .726 Not Applicable Not Applicable α .783 .714 .782 .727 .783 .727 .808 .738 Behaviour In Traffic (BIT) Usurpation of right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful Other Aggression (AQ) Physical Aggression Verbal Aggression Anger Hostility Indirect Aggression Hopelessness (BHS) Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge 26 11 8 3 4 8 8 8 8 5 7 8 6 20 11 10 9 .734 .711 .733 .781 .754 .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.741 .774 .811 .808 .
804 Study 1C .801 .2.903 . values ranging from . with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values. more than .929 .811 .857 . confirmatory factor analyses using LISREL (Jöreskog & Sörbom.804 . 1998.6.804 .80.807 Study 1B .803 .2. Sekaran (2003) notes that “if two comparable forms are highly correlated (.08 to . The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is a measure of the relative amount of variance and covariance in sample data that is jointly explained by sample data (Byrne. 2002) was used to establish evidence of construct validity for various measures.4. Table 4.807 . ordering or other test construction factors” (p. In Study 3. RMSEA values less than . depending on which is used (Byrne.805 .958 . Reliability coefficients in all studies where both forms were used are acceptable since Form A and Form B were highly correlated.05 indicate good fit. we may be fairly certain that the measures are reasonably reliable. Byrne.800 . with minimal error variance caused by wording.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 .876 . 1998). it was also possible to measure reliability as a coefficient of correlation between Form A and Form B (Synodinos &Papacostas.10 indicate a mediocre fit. 1998).953 . only Form A was used.3 Validity Test Results In the present research.10 indicate poor fit (MacCallum et al. The results of parallel-form reliability for the BIT instrument in different studies are shown in Table 4. 1985). 205). fits the population correlation matrix or covariance matrix.806 .802 4. 118 . 1998).808 Study 2 .916 .80 or above).2 Parallel-Form Reliability In the case of the BIT scale. and those greater than . The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index measures the error of approximation in the population and determines whether the model.
097 .000 .00 .054 .2.99 .000 .97 1.048 .95 1. parameter values for all four of these factors were within acceptable ranges.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the BIT Scale In the present research. RMSEA values in each case were less than .00 .000 . This reflects that the model fits worse than no model at all.99 . freeway urgency. the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is estimated to indicate whether complete covariation in the data is achieved.000 .00 1.000 .96 .97 . indicating good fits.00 1.92 .00 1.00 1.089 . A third statistic. it is generally considered an acceptable fit to the data (Bentler.000 .077 .98 . Table 4.000 .047 .097 . the higher the goodness-of-fit).Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993) reported that.000 . drivers’ behaviour in traffic was measured by the four component factors of the BIT scale: usurpation of right-of-way.96 1.91 .00 188.8.131.52 1.00.91 .90.92 1.99 .92 .99 .00 1.00 1. 1992).024 . and destination-activity orientation.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 . If the value of CFI exceeds .98 1.93 .00 .90.061 .00 1.00 1.98 . it is possible to have negative GFI.98 1. CFI= Comparative Fit Index 119 .070 .96 .3. As shown in Table 4.098 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation. although the GFI index ranges from zero to 1.7: 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 .00 (the closer to 1. and both GFI and CFI were more than .96 . externally-focused frustration. GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.99 .00 .00 .00 . 4.074 .
081 . externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P).93 .073 . CFA revealed that parameter values for I.3.085 .97 .2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Levenson Locus of Control Scale Locus of control was measured across three dimensions: internality (I).95 . under the assumption that locus of control is a multidimensional phenomenon.98 Study 2 RMSEA Study 3 CFI RMSEA GFI GFI CFI Locus of Control Internality Externality (Chance) Externality (Powerful-Other) .92 .98 .92 .2.96 . RMSEA values were less than . indicating good fits (See Table 4.052 .4.95 .96 . C and P scales were all within acceptable ranges.184.108.40.206 .058 .059 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.93 .96 .063 .93 .98 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.99 .8.096 .93 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .100.081 .96 . hostility (HOS) and indirect aggression 120 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .00 .93 .91 . Table 4.91 .091 . Five component factors of aggression were measured: physical aggression (PHY).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) .95 1.98 .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).93 .085 .99 .93 .91 .071 . Each component of the locus of control was measured separately. anger (ANG).92 .083 . verbal aggression (VER).030 .000 .
96 .93 . and both GFI and CFI were more than .055 .096 . Three classes of hostile automatic thoughts were measured: physical aggression.92 .94 .098 . CFA revealed that parameter values for all three measurement scales were within acceptable ranges. and both GFI and CFI were more than . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.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 .088 .058 .90.92 .97 .97 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.025 . indicating good fits (See Table 4.98 .97 .94 . Table 4.081 .97 .98 .(IND).089 . derogation of others and revenge.92 .98 .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 121 .96 Note: RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation.90.98 .100. RMSEA values were less than .047 .090 .98 .9).081 .070 . Table 4.10). CFA revealed that parameter values for all five aggression subscales were within acceptable ranges.98 .10: Summary of LISREL Results on Validity for HAT (Study 1C) RMSEA Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT) Physical Aggression Derogation of Others Revenge GFI CFI .088 .97 .95 .98 .97 .3.96 .98 .97 . indicating good fit (see Table 4.97 .97 . CFI= Comparative Fit Index 4.100.97 .083 . GFI= Goodness-of-Fit Index.98 .073 .99 .4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the HAT Scale The HAT was only used in Study 1C (with automobile drivers sampled from a student population).098 . A total aggression score was arrived at by summing the five subscale scores.2.095 .070 .98 .98 . RMSEA values were less than .98 .96 .95 .
260) . indicating that the distribution of scores did not depart from normality. 2005.203(.140) -.186) 1. 2006).140) -.120) 1.099) 1. 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 1.179(..107 (.140) . Skewness and kurtosis values of ± 1 are acceptable (Leech et al.034 (.080(.146(.106) 1.010 (.140) -.241(. values for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic were non-significant (p>.453(.719(.280) .099(. but with a non-signficant platykurtic tendency for the locus of control data.3 Normality.179(.280) .091(.140) -.140) -.280) -.297 (.099(.511(.332 (. Normality can also be assessed by examining sknewness and kurtosis values (Hair et al.064(.064) 1.805(.085) 1.085) 1. 1997).188(.105 (.094 (.256 (.183) 1.022 (.409(.140) -.280) -.069) 1.140) 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 .280) .297(.239 (.085 (.140) .280) . Table 4.331(.085 (.091) 1.353(.351 (.582(.140) .280) .656(.356 (. Table 4.140) .962 (.190) 1.278(.280) -.875(.037(.280) .280) -.192(.246(.140) .091(..102) 1.140) .408(.278(. Skewness and Kurtosis Data were studied to determine whether they were normally distributed and therefore capable of satisfying parametric assumptions.140) .082 (.280) .280) -.323 (.064(.280) -.11: Normality Tests.140) .920(.4.183) 1.204(. In all cases.140) -.140) -.05). Marcoulides & Hershberger.280) -.280) .191) 1.226 (.297(.428) .140) -.280) .280) -.140) -.192) 1.410(.195 (.280) .154(.126(.126(.560(.280) .107) 1.379(.099) 1.560(.280) -.020 (.409(.052) 1.140) -.403(.280) .140) .057) 1.219 (.11 indicates that variable distribution fell within these limits.
153) .306) -.210) .279 (.011 (.417) .106(.153) .366) 1.210) .106(.264) .062(.156(.147(.812(.186(.417) .417) -.219) .375) 1.417) -.153) .195 (.024 (.210) .919 (.219) .128) .463(.503(.210) .219) -.451(.244(.138) 1.497(.959 (.417) -.160 (.099) 1.952(.306) -.024 (.104) 1.359 (.338 (.147(.276 (.822 (.Table 4.052) 1.259) .567(.247) .110 (.540(.210) .153) .994(.209(.979(.417) -.973(306) .153) .370(.435) -.277(.443(.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 .327 (.295(.360) .138(.210) -.417) .223 (.219) -.210) .852(.940(.153) -.913 (.210) -.435) -.915(.913(.417) -.713(.064) 1.360) .911 (305) 1.537(.198(.102) .153) .106 (.153) .681(.236(.306) -.210) .807 (.247) 1.948(.153) .467(.135) 1.101) 1.366(.271(.435) -.884(.270) 1.057) 1.306) .362(.153) .501(.435) -.153) .629(.154) -.360) .317) 1.510) 1.131(.986 (.805 (.392(.435) -.113 (.276(.051) .417) -.972(.354 (.051) 1.100) .852(.006(.417) .219) .153) 983(.120(.324(.469) 1.219) .719(.306) .130(.084) 1.426) .048(.978(.022 (.098) 1.003 (.210) .153) .847 (.297 (.098) 1.267) .359 (.962 (.219) -.417) -.001 (.053(.417) -.962(.799(.153) .306) .435) -.088 (.293 (.306) -.360) -.306) -.640(.567(.187) 1.435) -.533) .841(.142(.266 (.321) 1.157) .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 1.053(.306) -.159(.256(.306) .214) 1.306) .414(.435) .210) -.715(.052) 1.022 (.007(.478(.128 (.300(.153) -.070 (.219) .030(.423(.265) 1.
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.3 per cent being hospitalised. if so. column b). whether the accident had resulted in (1) no injuries or injuries insufficiently severe to seek medical attention (see Table 4. For motorcycle drivers. 1B and 1C selfreported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4. (2) injuries severe enough to require out-patient treatment at a medical clinic (see Table 4. column c). However. column a). with 44. injury occurrence was much higher. Male and female automobile drivers reported involvement in one crash with almost the same frequency.12. males were more than twice as likely to report involvement in two or three automobile crashes. 124 .12.13).12. (3) injuries requiring hospitalisation (see Table 4. Table 4.4 Crash and Injury Occurrence Data Participants in all studies indicated whether they had experienced an accident within the preceding twelve months in which their vehicle had sustained more than RM100 damage and.4.12: Crash and Injury Occurrence OUTCOME VARIABLES STUDY 1A 1B 1C 2 3 N 301 302 252 122 133 Number of Participants’ Reported Crash 181 255 174 157 22 Vehicle Damage a 84 142 102 45 17 Out-patient Treatment b 68 75 47 58 3 Hospital Admission c 29 38 25 54 2 More than half of the automobile drivers sampled in Studies 1A.
Gender and Ethnicity in Study 1 (N=855) Automobile Drivers Ethnicity No. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No. male motorcycle drivers reported higher crash occurrence than female motorcycle drivers. involved in two crash Total Ethnicity No. Gender and Ethnicity in Study 2 (N=122) Motorcycle drivers Ethnicity No. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 20 8 25 13 16 1 61 22 17 4 15 4 11 0 43 8 10 1 6 1 3 0 19 2 Total 28 38 17 83 21 19 11 51 11 7 3 21 125 . involved in two crashes Total Ethnicity No.Table 4. Table 4.14: Crash Occurrence Frequency.14) Regardless of ethnic background. involved in three crashes Total Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Malay Malaysian-Chinese Malaysian-Indian Gender Male Female 80 57 119 103 33 44 232 204 24 9 19 7 7 2 50 18 12 5 9 3 1 2 22 10 Total 137 222 77 436 33 26 9 68 17 12 3 32 More than half of the motorcycle drivers sampled in Study 2 reported that they had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash over the preceding year (see Table 4.13: Crash Occurrence Frequency. involved in one crash Total Ethnicity No.
Both externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) were not significantly correlated with the HAT subscale measuring hostile automatic thoughts related to the derogation-of-others.5 4. Most of these correlations were significant (p<. I was significantly correlated with all variables except with VER and hostility.05).05). BHS was not significantly correlated with verbal aggression (VER). All these correlations were significant (p<. Table 4. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. standard deviations and relationships between distal.17 shows means. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Table 4. in Study 1B.05).5.15 shows means. Study 1C. crash occurrence and crash injury. Table 4. standard deviations and relationships between distal. Most of these correlations were significant (p<.4. However. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with other variables.1 Distal and Proximal Variable Data Results of Study 1 Study 1A. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers. Study 1B. freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation. it was not correlated with injury occurrence. 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. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except I which was negatively corrected with other variables. Also. Hopelessness (BHS) was the only independent variable that was not significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. externally-focused frustration. standard deviations and relationships between distal. 126 . proximal and outcome variables within the sample of automobile drivers.16 shows means. Although VER was significantly correlated with crash occurrence.
339** .44 4.280** .376** .3455 .036 .96 19.371** .942** 1 .482** .388** .376** .381** .416** 1 .00 165.513** . 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.247** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9.15: Means.5 5.211** .435** .396** .97 43.22 3.129* .69 24.201** .471** .716** .202** .553** -.278** .191** .391** -.533** .04 26.442 1 -.246** .218** .D.316** .88 7.45 6.804** .152** .749** .562** -.01 level (2-tailed) 127 .57 4.239** .476 .23 2.147* .306** .662** 1 .2691 6.58 .155** .08 2.52 34.64 7.625** .186** .405** .516** 1 -.209** 1 .331** 1 * Correlation is significant at .901** .231** .342** -.818** 1 .434** .566** 1 -.147* -.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .340** .Table 4.544** -.345** 1 -.76 3.78 .027 1 .
173* .380** .172** .16: Means.816** .520** .407** 1 -.48 5.45 5 87.463** .584** -.298** .148* .355** .434** .386** .55 9 21.380** .489**.400** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1B (n=302) Mean S.279** .236** .355** .816** .586** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .669** 1 -.540** .84 7.91 15 27.964** 1 .602** 1 .343** .491** .200** .276** .505** .452** .147** .69 8.00 14 19.438** 1 .355** .688**.521** .43 12.393** .271** .518** .461** .491** .430** .496** .378** .531** .089 -.254** .312** 1 -.779** 1 -.414** .9 13 46.481** .324** .013 1 .418** .176* .555** .60 10 16.334** .401** .9 12 71.25 8 18.150** .268** .376** .319** .509** .294** 1 .335** .847** .003 .051 .4624 1 -.855** .213** .82 7 13.369** .462** .06 3 2.225** .039 .341** .408** .071 .103 -.331** .363** .353** .5695 .50 5.48 3.278** 1 -.162** .763** .067 -.358** .4960 17 .444** .542** .338** .028 .372** .337** .514** .440**.172** .028 -.213** .921** .97 4 4.84 5.240** .343** .342** .41 3.516** .842** 1 .157** .411** .97 Outcome Variables2 16 .5 6 17.286* .85 9.762** .9 28.254** .153** .382** 1 -.22 4.523** .86 6.65 Proximal Variables1 11 170.403** .178** .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 .347** 1 -.331** .254** .445** .159 -.Table 4.213** .272** .53 19.099 .550** .697** 1 .167** .14 4.103 -. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Distal Variables1 1 9.66 3.310** .731** .3079 .01 level (2-tailed) 128 .515** .587** 1 -.140* .56 2 4.366** .443** .448** .195** .D.275** .
167** .422 -.17 -.250** .Table 4.277** .101**.377** .856** 1 17 43.838** .265** 1 19 25.366** .166** .320** .199**.254** .424** 1 12 18.592** .203** .38 5.483** .263** .016 .745** 1 7 13.308** .109 .292** .228** .192**.52 7.91 -.364**.310** .348** 1 6 16.181** .81 -.434** .137* .343** . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 1C (n=252) Mean S.270** .296** .189** .119* 1 21 .338** .293** .191** 1 3 .31 3.196** .278** .42 3.80 17.230** .216** .302** .378** .057 .476** .306** .228** .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 .343** .387** .051 .069 .191** .81 5.508** .89 5.11 12.251** .804** .235** .448** .109 .641** 1 4 4.268**.183** .428** .368** .275** .588** 1 14 20.095 .345** .270** .296** .131* .192** .224**.110 .150* .209** .58 9.17: Means.404** .05 -.219** .314** .-181** .8 -.245** .003 .36 -.67 7.252** .70 8.324** .D.210**.148** .162**.506** .288** .423** .304** .141* .259** .229** .465** .151* .082 .254** .86 -.364** .03 -.7 -.49 6.183** .189** .379** .106 .311** .275** .454** .531** 1 10 16.277**.9 -.413** .895** 1 13 26.103** .150* .98 4.749** .038 .281** .502** .385** .202** .227** .355** .70 3.235** .373** .725** .356** .304** .85 19.178** .342** .03 5.296** .402** .259** .158** .31 -.481** .370** .095 .230** .081 .120 .69 -.367** .545** .291** .422** 1 9 22.277** 1 8 19.306** .261** .383** .241** .193**.305** .349** 1 16 67.221** .241** .230 .186** .222** .221** .246** .451** .64 -.218** .70 1 2 4.033 .210** .9 -.7 28.401** .166** .862** .735** .307**.202** .264** .518** .292** .281** .212** .526** .298** .357** .079 1 Outcome Variables2 20 .183** .286** .354** 1 5 88.412** .313** .075 .17 -.516 .534** 1 18 19.174** .130** .139** . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Distal Variables1 1 10.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .390** .747** .226** .18 -.501 .278** .530** .076 .549** 1 Proximal Variables1 15 161.00 -.565** .323** .395** 1 11 65.402** .258** .340** .271** .185** .37 6.392** .224** .446** .199** .615** .01 level (2-tailed) S 129 .456** .484** .78 8.97 -.294** .151* .
freeway urgency. but it was not correlated with crash occurrence or injury occurrence. it was not correlated with crash occurrence or with crash injury. crash occurrence and injury occurrence. 4.2 Results of Study 2 Table 4.BHS was significantly correlated to the total BIT score and to BIT subscales: usurpation of right-of-way. Hostility (HOS) was significantly correlated with all other variables except with crash occurrence and crash injury. However. All distal and proximal variables were positively correlated except internality (I) which was negatively corrected with the BIT total score. and destination-activity orientation. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. Similar to observed results in study 1A. standard deviations and relationships between distal. The BIT subscale measuring destinationactivity orientation was significantly correlated to crash occurrence but not to injury occurrence. BHS was significantly correlated with total BIT score and with all of the BIT subscales. 130 .5. all BIT subscales.18 shows means. 1B and 1C. externally-focused frustration. Of these negative the BIT subscales measuring freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration were significant.
409** .76 48.48 5.371** -.035 3.183* 1 .233** .240** .349** .14 27.55 175.D.323 23.374** .876** .01 level (2-tailed) 131 .917 3.4966 1 .334** .212* .226** .500** .111 -.580** 1 .317** .614** .485 11.4683 .179 7.06 20.025 -.043 .415** .232** .Table 4.413** .621 3.413** 1 .630** .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .081 8.66 1.269** .291** .367** .428** .66 5.30 . 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.150 -.6803 .758** 1 .795** 1 * Correlation is significant at .251** .139 .182* -.200* -.290** .259** .418** .219** .941** 1 .535** 1 .314** .072 .376** .028 1 .313** 1 .50 73.192* -.750** .201* .18: Means.325** .165 .562** 1 .383** .880 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3.356** .122 7.264** .5738 8.167 .
but remaining I correlations with BIT and AQ subscales did not achieve significance.19. verbal aggression (VER) and anger (ANG) were significantly correlated only with crash occurrence.19 shows means. standard deviations and relationships between distal. While physical aggression (PHY) and hostility (HOS) were significantly correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. neither an observed weak positive correlation between I and C. As indicated in Table 4.4.5. Externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) scores were significantly and positively correlated with crash occurrence and injury occurrence. BIT total scores had a significant positive correlation with crash occurrence but not with injury occurrence. 132 . proximal or outcome variables in Study 3 were weaker than those observed in Studies 1 and 2. Differing from Studies 1A. 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. nor a weak negative correlation between I and P achieved significance. In general. 1B. correlations between I and distal.3 Results of Study 3 Table 4. However. AQ subscales were significantly and positively correlated with each other. proximal and outcome variables within the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3. 1C and 2. In this study.
150** .32 3.197* .816** .023 .99 10.4 5.156 .Table 4.255** .12 4.378** 1 .254** -.020 .576** .177 1 .13 3.D.622** .149 . Standard Deviations and Bivariate Correlations for Variables in Study 3 (n=133) Mean S.292** .117 .618** 1 .021 1 * Correlation is significant at .028 .072 -.636** .060 -.807** .234** .048 .275** .65 75.561** 1 .05 3.2000 .225** .17 20.023 -.01 level (2-tailed) 133 .721** .114 .121 .43 8.276** .07 8.84 2.521** .092** .42 66.82 11.128 .604** .165 .030 .106 . 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 12.11 15.235** .236** .161 -.286* 1 .257** .245** .643** .103 .19: Means.222* .35 11.180** .853** .235** .072 .05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at .82 5.10 1.054 .147** .091 .172** .149 .200* .018 -.54 11.148* .151 -.246** .418** .141 .658** .112 -.213** .528** 1 .060 .193* -.588** 1 .240** .171 .013 .173* .401** -.872** .178** .289** 1 .268** .51 3.194* 1 .373** .31 8.88 1 .864** 1 .194* .204* .749** .3 6.121 .095 .071 .116 .039 .32 7.218* .263** .025 -.324** .0301 .15 32.152 .070 -.06 2.261** .061 .45 19.091 -.120 .08 15.338** 1 .404 .213** .454** .229** .240** .74 15.109 -.271** .182* -.117 .443** 1 .371** .067 .032 1 .117 .167** .166 .156 .040 .646** .153** 1 .
034.088 p<.6.063.1. p<.01 B=. 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=. Study 1B: B=. results of logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way. Study 2: B=. While controlling driver experience and driving frequency.01 and Study 3: B=.080. but not destination-activity orientation.01). For the destination-activity factor.1 through H1.102.202.01 Study 1B B=.1).20).1.090. These results supported H1.238.120. analyses were conducted to test whether BIT scores influenced crash occurrence.315.01 B=.01 B=.01 134 . H1. p<.01 B=.4. p<. 4.01 Study 3 B=.01 B=. freeway urgency.041.4 was not supported.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.146. p<.095.01.01 B=. that behaviour in traffic influences crash occurrence. p<. When the relationships between the four component factors of the BIT scale and the likelihood of a crash outcome were tested.125. p<.01 B=. p<.180.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=.01 B=.01 B=. Table 4. p<.20: Results of Logistic Regression Analyses Showing the Effects of BIT Component Factors on Crash Occurrence Study 1A Usurpation of Right-of Way Freeway Urgency Externally-focused Frustration Destination-activity Orientation B=. p<.01 B=.1 Hypothesis 1: Behaviour in Traffic Influences Motor Vehicle Crash Outcomes First.3 inclusive. p<.048. p<.6 Hypothesis Testing This section reports the results of analyses to test the hypotheses formulated in chapter 3 (see Table 3.117.135.063.278. p<. p<. p<. and externally-focused frustration.172.1. p<.01 B=. p<. were significantly related to crash occurrence (see Table 4. p<. These results supported H1.01 B=. p<. p<.01. p<. Study 1C: B=.01 B=.1.229.095. p<. p<. p<.04.01.
01 B=. p<. 1B and 1C (see Table 4.01 B=.095.064.01 Not Significant Study 2 B=.2. p<. p<. Study 1C: B=.091. freeway urgency.22.23 and Table 4. These results supported H1. p<.01 B=.118. p<.01 B=. 135 .24.21).069. When driver experience and travel frequency were controlled. Table 4.01 and Study 2: 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. the results of logistic regression showed that total BIT scores were strongly regressed with the likelihood of experiencing an injury related to a motor vehicle crash (Study 1A: B=.01 B=.05 Study 1B B=.019. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation were significantly related to traffic crash injury in all studies except Study 3 (See Table 4.074.140. p<. logistic regression analyses indicated that usurpation of right-of way.087. Table 4. that behaviour in traffic would influence injury occurrence.01 B=. When the relationships between the likelihood of injury occurrence and the four component factors of the BIT scale were tested.Behaviour in traffic also influenced injury occurrence in all studies except Study 3.165. respectively).01 B=.033 p<. p<. p<. p<. p<. p<.158.21: 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=.6. p<.01 B=.035.054.01.075 p<.01 Study 3 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant 4.01).01 B=.01 B=.01 Study 1C B=. p<.01. p<.035. p<.01 B=.120.059.038. Study 1B: B=. p<.
01 N M SD F 186 88 18 9 161.600** Table 4.50 28. * p<.35 155.15 161.22: 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<.98 171.43 20.23: 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<.184** 136 .73 170.82 33.98 33.64 26.35 4.68 26.074* 110 81 37 45 29 181.44 178.35 24.16 3.320** 64 110 41 17 69 173.32 28.29 21.Table 4.25 5.03 25.48 171.35 33.77 165.30 22.64 27. N M SD F 221 60 19 2 168.06 19.31 161.52 25.77 8.01.32 147.60 185.88 28.82 168.89 21.41 167.25 25.05.92 157.56 175.
Table 4.00 16.73 157.24: 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<.39 19.060** In Study 1A.81 167.01).29 15.05).12 161.01).01 14. In Study 2. motorcycle drivers’ experience was not significantly related to total BIT scores (see Table 4.73 24.88 167.05). Drivers who travelled every day had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.06 8.00 14.61 165.05).05.52 3.14 15. In Study 1B.25). Drivers who travelled about once or twice a week had significantly higher total BIT when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<. 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<.53 17.01).01). Drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who almost never travelled (p<.345* 67 69 33 45 38 170. and those who almost never travelled (p<.01. In Study 1C. * p<. N M SD F 187 46 16 3 159. drivers who travelled everyday had significantly higher total BIT scores when compared to those who travelled several times a week (p<.77 16. 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<.01). On the other hand. the effect of travel frequency on total BIT score was significant. about once every two weeks (p<.05) and about once every two weeks (p<.12 154.06 160. 137 .
381 10.25: 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<.63 1.47 5.753* 38 48 27 20 77. Not significant N M SD F 3 16 23 91 82.09 15.60 72.81 175.62 10.316 1.97 8. N.52 172. the difference in means of total BIT scores among the drivers in Study 3 was not statistically significant regardless of their years of experience as taxicab drivers.31 78. both driver experience and taxicab experience were tested.89 20. It was found that the driver experience was statistically related to total BIT score (see Table 4.81 22.26 10. Not significant N M SD F 77 31 10 4 174.S.55 10.50 24.31 2.437 (N.859 11.71 168.26: 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<. Table 4.528** In Study 3.S) 52 32 7 17 14 182.94 20. * p<.65 73. However.68 20. the direction of the difference was opposite to what had 138 .26).920 (N.80 22. taxicab driver experience was not statistically related to total BIT score.S) Therefore.81 161.05.58 188.01.50 184.Table 4.56 3.82 162. However.27 14. N.64 24.37 9.74 77. * p<.33 78.55 73.05. In other words.01. it is concluded that Hypothesis 2. that drivers’ demographic characteristics would significantly influence total BIT scores was supported in studies of automobile drivers.S.
6.2. In Studies 1A. In Study 3. ANOVA results for age. 4. where male automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers. ethnicity and age – were investigated. only H2.27). the longer the taxicab operator had been driving. Contrary to the subhypothesis. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of taxicab drivers.1 was confirmed. the lower was the total BIT score. t-tests indicated that mean total BIT scores differed significantly between male and female participants.1 and H2. the direction of the effect was consistent with the hypothesised relationship between driver experience and total BIT score. 1B. In Study 2. Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in the study of motorcycle drivers. 1B.2. 139 . though. 1C and 2 differed between different ethnic groups (see Table 4. Again.2 was supported in that travel frequency significantly influenced total BIT score but driver 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. Contrary to the two sub-hypotheses. In this case. 1C and 2.been predicted by H2. For ethnicity. in that driver experience significantly influenced total BIT score but taxicab experience had no statistically significant effect. the observed effect was opposite to what had been predicted by H2. travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. ANOVA indicated that mean total BIT scores in Studies 1A. indicated no significant differences in mean total BIT scores. only H2. driver experience and travel frequency actually increased total BIT scores. however.
male 140 . Study 1B t=2. it was found that female automobile drivers scored significantly higher levels on the I dimension when compared to male automobile drivers. H3.53. N.00. p<. p<. 1C and Study 2. N.01 F=1.562. Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers scored significantly higher total BIT scores than Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers (p<.S.05.01).12. In Study 1B.66. Externality-Chance (C).01 F=1. Therefore. p<. In Study 1C.98.3 was not supported.05 F=4. p<. N.1 and H3. In all studies.05.S.81. however. t(250) = 2. p<.6.68.05 F=11.05). it is concluded that Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.9.01 F=8.01 F=19. p<. age had no statistically significant direct effect on total BIT scores. in that gender and ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores. p<.01 F=. p<. For taxicab drivers studied in Study 3. 4.S Study 3 Not Applicable F=3.4 Hypothesis 4: Demographic Variables Influence Locus of Control The direct effects of the same three demographic variables on locus of control were also investigated. Note: Not significant In Study 1A.01 F=9. N.Table 4.2 was confirmed. In Study 3. H3. N. Study 1C t=3.56. and Externality-Powerful-Others (P).05).62. p<. Study 2 t=3.44. Malaysian-Indian taxicab drivers had significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Chinese taxicab drivers (p<.2 were confirmed. results showed that gender had no influence on the three dimensions of locus of control: Internality (I).74. In Study 1B. so the null hypothesis could not be rejected and H3.S. in that ethnicity significantly influenced total BIT scores.27: Effects of Demographic Factors on total BIT Scores Study 1A Gender Ethnicity Age t=2. p<. In Study 1A and Study 2.S.99. post hoc analyses indicated that MalaysianChinese automobile drivers and motorcyclists scored significantly lower total BIT scores than either Malaysian-Indian or Malay drivers (p<.01 F=2.
Malaysian-Indian drivers had significantly higher scores on the C dimension than did Malay drivers (p<. 298) = 3. 298) = 6. post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the C and P dimensions than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<.05 and F(2. p<.05.05 respectively. 298) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to I subscale scores. Post hoc analysis showed that MalaysianIndian automobile drivers scored significantly higher than did Malaysian-Chinese drivers (p<. F(2.05) and Malaysian-Indian drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did drivers in all other ethnic groups (p<.05 respectively. F(2. p<. 2 and 3 the age variable had no significant direct effects on any of the three dimensions of locus of control. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to mean C and P subscale scores. 119) = 5. p<. 299) = 3. ethnic group differences were significant only with respect to P subscale scores. 1C.05).05 and p<. F(2.370.490. 249) = 3. In Study 1B.05). t(299) = 2.01).503.527. p<.566.476.01 respectively).941. F(2.01. p<. p<.05 and F(2. p<.automobile and motorcycle drivers scored significantly higher on the P dimension than did female automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 respectively. t(120) = 2. Consistent with findings in Study 1A.462. For Studies 1A. 1B.05. In Study 2. E and P scores. all ethnic groups had significantly different mean I. 299) = 5. Post hoc analyses indicated that Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers had significantly lower I scores than did either Malaysian-Chinese or Malay drivers (p<. p<. 141 . In Study 1A. In Study 1C. F(2.01). Post hoc analyses showed that Malaysian-Indian motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than all other ethnicity groups on the I dimension (p<.041.
were supported. Malay motorcycle drivers had a significantly higher BHS score when compared to Malaysian-Chinese motorcycle drivers (p<. H4. t(120) = 2. externality-chance and externality-powerfulothers. H4.1. that ethnicity significantly influenced internality. that age influences hopelessness. Hypothesis 5 was not supported with respect to automobile drivers in Study 1.05.3.2.2 and H4. In addition. in that gender was observed to significantly influence the externalitypowerful-others scores. In Studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. it was found that the gender and ethnicity of motorcycle drivers did have a significant direct effect on hopelessness.6. p<.079. H4. externality-chance and externality-powerful-others.3 were supported. ethnicity and age on hopelessness were investigated.3 was supported. H4.2.3. Independent sample t-tests on data from Studies 1A. 1B and 1C found no significant differences in mean scores of hopelessness (BHS) between male and female automobile drivers. Hypothesis 5 was partially supported in Study 2 with the sample of motorcycle drivers. 142 .3. Age was found to have no influence on BHS scores with the sample of motorcycle drivers in Study 2. In Study 1. in Study 2.Therefore. H5.5 Hypothesis 5: Demographic Variables Influence Hopelessness The direct effects of gender. Therefore. However.3.3 were not supported. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported in studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers. was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2. Female motorcycle drivers scored significantly lower than male motorcycle drivers. based on the results of t-tests and ANOVA. so H4. ANOVA results found no significant differences in mean BHS scores between ethnic groups or different age groups among automobile drivers in Studies 1A. H5.2. 1B or 1C.1.1 and H5.1. 4.2 and H4. that gender and ethnicity influence hopelessness.01). it was observed that age had no significant effect on any of internality.2.
H6. p<. p<.186. respectively). respectively). p<. I had a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -. p<. In Study 1B.342. 4.3.290.254. with the sample of motorcycle drivers. Therefore.1.7 Hypothesis 7: Hopelessness Influences Behaviour in Traffic In studies of both automobile and motorcycle drivers.01 and B = .306.01. In Study 2. p<. no significant effects were observed between I and BHS scores in the sample of motorcycle drivers. p<.28).01) but externality-chance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .341.01 and (B = .01.01 respectively).01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . H6. 143 . that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others would influence hopelessness.4. p<.01) but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = . results of linear regression analyses indicated that hopelessness had a significant positive effect on total BIT scores and on scores for each of the four BIT component factors (see table 4. p<. respectively).01.2 and H6. with higher levels of internality related to lower levels of hopelessness and higher levels of both externality dimensions associated with higher hopelessness. p<.239.01 and B = .3. that internality would influence hopelessness.6 Hypothesis 6: Locus of Control Influences Hopelessness In Study 1A.1.6. was not supported. but C and P had significant positive effects on BHS scores (B = .6. In Study 1C. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported in Study 2. it is concluded that Hypothesis 6 was supported in studies of automobile drivers. p<.371. were supported. H6. that the three locus of control dimensions influence hopelessness. were supported.354.312. internality (I) had a significant negative effect on hopelessness (BHS) (B = -.254. p<.01 and B = . H6.2 and H6. I was found to have a significant negative effect on BHS scores (B = -.
191. p<. externallyfocused frustration and destination-activity were supported in both Studies 1 and 2. freeway urgency (B = . freeway urgency (B = .01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05 Study 2 B=. p<. that hopelessness would have a significant positive direct effect on usurpation of right-of-way. p<. In Study 2.01).280.287.349.153.05).1. p<.275.S.287.01).151.28: Direct effects of hopelessness on BIT scores Total BIT score Usurpation of Right-of-way Freeway Urgency Externally-Focused Frustration Destination-Activity Orientation Study 1A B=.01 B=. p<. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<. was supported in Studies 1A.151. the higher the hopelessness scores.01 B=. p<.4. p<.415. p<.01). p<.232. B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = .Table 4.05 B=. p<. p<. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness (BHS) scores. H7.153. p<. p<.247.01 B=. externally-focused frustration (B = .01 B=.141. meaning that H7 was only partially supported for that study. it was observed that the higher the hopelessness scores. p<.2.317.01 B=.05 Study 1C B=. In Study 1B.01).01 B=.157. p<.01 B=.05) and destinationactivity orientation (B = .232. p<. p<.247.4220.127.116.118. the higher the hopelessness scores. freeway urgency (B =.3 and H7.141.349. p<.05) but not for freeway urgency. p<.01 B=. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<. p<.151. N.01 B=.288. 1C and 2.280. that hopelessness would have a significant positive effect on freeway urgency was not supported in Study 1B. p<. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . p<.418. p<.275.01 Study 1B B=. it is concluded that Hypothesis 7. p<. p<. Therefore. p<.01 B=.01 B=.01).01).05) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05).254. 144 .099.05).157. externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.01). with both automobile and motorcycle drivers. H7. p<. H7. p<. p<. p<.151.191. that hopelessness would have a significant positive influence on total BIT scores. the higher were BIT subscale scores for usurpation of right-of-way (B = . externally-focused frustration (B = . p<.05 In Study 1A.01) and destination-activity orientation (B = .05 B=.317. In Study 1C.01 B=.01 B=.
With regard to H8.1. where only H8. p<.2. the higher were mean total BIT scores of automobile and motorcycle drivers in Studies 1 and 2. N. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for motorcycle drivers in Study 2.01 B=-.3 that externality-powerful-others would influence total BIT scores.01 B=. that internality and externality-chance would influence total BIT scores were supported.077. the higher were mean total BIT scores automobile drivers in Study 1.339. p<. p<. p<. motorcycle and taxicab drivers).297.044.239. that internality would negatively influence total BIT scores was supported.006. Hypothesis 8 was partially supported for taxicab drivers in Study 3. N. provided support for hypothesis H8. 145 .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.178. but not of the motorcycle and taxicab drivers in Studies 2 and 3 (See Table 4.29: Direct Effects of Locus of Control on Total BIT Scores Study 1A I C P Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 B=-. p<.01 B=-.1.01 B=. p<. H8. Table 4. Results of multiple regression analyses (in studies of car.168. p<. but not of the sample of taxicab drivers in Study 3.01 B=-. With regard to H8.01 B=. p<. the lower were mean total BIT scores.S.2.01 B=. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for P.01 B=-.753.315.3.01 B=.3.229. it is concluded that Hypothesis 8 was supported for automobile drivers in Study 1.4. p<.2 and H8.29).1.S. B=.336.6. p<. H8.208. that the higher the subscale score for I. that locus of control would influence total BIT scores were supported in Study 1. Therefore.625.01 B=. p<. with internality observed to exert a positive effect on BIT and the two externality dimensions to exert negative effects.1 and H8. but not H8. B=. N.388.05 B=.01 B=. H8.S. p<. results indicated that the higher were subscale scores for C.
1). =8.710. 146 . freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration than did Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers with high internal control. p<. externality -chance and externality-powerful-others – were split at the median to form high and low groups so that the interaction effect of ethnicity and locus of control could be tested on total BIT scores and subscale scores for the four component factors.1). Further.909. results revealed that Malay automobile drivers with high internal control had significantly lower scores on BIT subscales measuring usurpation of right-of-way. In Study 1C. F=7.272. p<.Additional analysis: Interaction of ethnicity and locus of control on BIT. p<. F=4.05.1: Interaction Effects between Ethnicity and Internality on BIT In Study 1C. p<. 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.01 and F=8. 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.581. Mean Score on Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) 175 Ethnicty Malay MalaysianChinese 170 MalaysianIndian 165 160 155 150 low high Internality Figure 4. Scores for the three locus of control dimensions – internality.2).01 respectively (see Figure 4. F=4.01 (see Figure 4.01 (see Figure 4.704.
2: Interaction Effect between Ethnicity and Externality-Chance on Usurpation of Right-of Way 4. multiple regression showed mixed results.537) and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result.3). p<.327. B = .05.6.Mean Score on Usurpation of Right-of Way Ethnicty 74.034. 147 . hopelessness did not moderate the relationship between locus of control and BIT.033. 1B and 1C. 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 4.00 Malay MalaysianChinese 72.00 62.00 64. the results of hierarchical regression indicated that the R2 value changed after the internality x hopelessness interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.00 MalaysianIndian 70.00 low high Externality (Chance) Figure 4. Kurtosis=-. in Study 2.00 66. F=4. However. First. Hopelessness moderated the relationship between internality and the total BIT score and between externality-chance and to total BIT score.00 68. R2=. p<. Residuals Normality: Skewness=.282.9 Hypothesis 9: Hopelessness Moderates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Behaviour in Traffic For Studies 1A.05.444.
p<.608.167. F=18.4). p<.01.BIT Level Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Internality Figure 4.070.3: 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=. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. This means that motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores and high hopelessness scores tended to have higher total BIT scores when compared to motorcycle drivers with high externality-chance scores but low hopelessness scores (see figure 4. and the moderator (hopelessness) showed a significant result. R2=.463. Kurtosis=-.371).459.01.4: Moderating Effect of BHS on the Externality (Chance) -BIT Relationship 148 . B = . Effect for drivers with high hopelessness score BIT Level Effect for drivers with low hopelessness score Externality (Chance) Figure 4.
results indicated that male automobile drivers scored significantly higher than female drivers on measures of physical aggression.480.6.01 t=-.467.10 Hypothesis 10: Demographic Factors Influence Aggression Analyses tested whether gender. N. Mean total AQ scores differed significantly between male and female participants in Studies 1B and 1C.01 The relationship between ethnic background and aggression was tested for automobile drivers in Studies 1B. N.1. Post hoc analysis showed that Malaysian-Chinese 149 . p<.05 respectively.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=2.210. With motorcycle drivers. p<. p<. p<. ethnicity and age exerted direct effects on drivers’ Aggression Questionnaire (AQ) scores. p<. and t(250) = 2.298. it is concluded that Hypothesis 9 was not supported in Study 1. were supported. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between externalitychance and total BIT scores. p<.032. p<. When mean subscale scores for the five AQ component factors were tested.187.690.01. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean total AQ scores. N. male automobile drivers had significantly higher total AQ scores than did female automobile drivers. p<. In Study 1B and Study 3. However.05 Study 1C t=2. that hopelessness would moderate the relationship between internality and total BIT scores.31).S t=2. Hypothesis 9 was partially supported in Study 2. Table 4.01 t=2.690.677. Hopelessness did not moderate the locus of control-BIT relation for automobile drivers. however.2.780. 1C and 3.05 t=4. p<. F(2. N.164. mean total AQ scores differed significantly between ethnic groups. the H9.30).603. 249) = 5. 4.01 t=2. and H9.05 t=. t= .603.521.820. p<. verbal aggression and indirect aggression (see Table 4.S t=2.01 t=4. In Study 1C. In both studies. t(300) = 2.Therefore.01 (see table 4.S.S t=1. p<.
S.01). N. N. F=2. In Study 3. 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 3.629.01 Study 3 F=1.422.01).01. F(2.432.01). N.01 F=. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. F=4. F=1. 150 . F=. mixed results were found. p<.01.432. N.S. F=2.05.521. 299) = 5.182. the mean verbal aggression (VER) scores of Malay. p<.632.561. In Study 1C.077.57. ANOVA revealed no significant differences between ethnic groups in mean scores in any of the AQ subscale scores. N. p<. F=1.S. 249) = 10. N. F=2. N. N.S. The mean indirect aggression (IND) scores of Malay.398. F(2. F=1.S.01 F=2. F=1. p<.S F=10. mean IND scores of Malay. Malay automobile drivers scored significantly higher VER scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. N.01). F=5.041.S. N. F(2. 299) = 4. N. N.automobile drivers in Study 1C had significantly lower total AQ scores than did Malay or Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers (p<.S.S.155.S. N. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.804. p<.S.904. N.567. F=1.05 Study 1C F=5. When AQ subscale scores were tested for Study 1B and Study 1C. p<. Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers had significantly lower IND scores than drivers from other ethnic groups (p<. p<.564. In Study 1B. Table 4.763.021. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were also significantly different. F=2.526.S.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.S. Malaysian-Chinese and Malaysian-Indian automobile drivers were significantly different.041. Similar to the findings in Study 1B.
In Studies 1B and 1C. 151 . H10.Therefore. the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. however. it is concluded that Hypothesis 10 was partially supported.1. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on externally-focused frustration and on destination-activity orientation. total BIT scores and scores on usurpation of right-of way and freeway urgency subscales were higher. H11. respectively.4.32). However. The higher the total aggression scores. VER and IND subscale scores. 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. and destination-activity orientation (see Table 4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.3 and H11.11 Hypothesis 11: Aggression Influences Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1B and Study 1C. H10.2.3 and H11. H10. 4. in studies of both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers. In Study 3.1 (that gender would influence aggression) was supported with respect to measures of total aggression and to the same three (PHY. This means that when taxicab drivers’ aggression scores were higher. Therefore.4. H11. only H11. it is concluded that Hypothesis 11. that aggression would have a positive influence on total BIT scores.6. were all supported. freeway urgency. with regard to the taxicab drivers sampled in Study 3. H11.2 (that ethnicity would influence aggression level) was supported only in Study 1C and only with respect to total AQ. externally-focused frustration. VER and IND) of five component factors among automobile drivers sampled in both Studies 1B and 1C.29).3 (that age would negatively influence aggression) was not supported. that aggression would have a direct positive effect on the usurpation of right-of way. freeway urgency. 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. were supported. was supported.
Table 4.01. B = .545. p<. p<.505. Study 1C and Study 3. p<. p<.01.048. Study 2 and Study 3.370.461. no interaction effects were found in all studies – Study 1A.01 and B = . Similarly. p<.S. 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.S. Linear regression analyses indicated that physical aggression (PHY) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B.05 (see Figure 4. p<. p<. N.520. their total BIT scores tend to be higher.216.01 B=.491. but that this does not apply to taxi drivers.05 B=.183. the higher the levels of PHY and HOS.01 B=.01 B=. B = .881. p<. p<. respectively.05 B=.385. F=3. Malay automobile drivers with high VER scores tended to score 152 .01 B=. p<. Study 1C and Study 3. 1C. B = .01 respectively. Also. respectively.540.121. p<. p<. N. 1B. p<. p<. With both automobile and taxicab drivers.01 respectively. Results of regression analyses also showed that anger (ANG) had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C. but not in Study 3. However. B = . When the interaction effect of ethnicity and hopelessness was tested on the BIT and its four component factors.263. Verbal aggression (VER) was found to have no significant influence on total BIT scores.324. hostility (HOS) was found to have a significant positive influence on BIT in Study 1B.263. p<.483.01 Study 1C B=. p<. the higher were total BIT scores. p<. p<. and B = . This implies that when automobile drivers have higher levels of ANG and IND. p<. p<.01 and B = .204.428.01 B=.438.229. p<. and B = .01 B=. but not in Study 3.01 B=. p<. B = .01 B=.01 B=. it was found that there was an interaction effect between ethnicity and verbal aggression (VER) on freeway urgency. p<.5).01.01.32: Effect of Aggression on Total BIT Scores and on BIT Component Factors Study 1B B=.387.380.01.01.565. B = . Additional analysis: Interaction effects of ethnicity and aggression on BIT. B=. indirect aggression (IND) was also found to have significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1B and Study 1C.235. p<.01 Study 3 B=.370.
362. R2=. p<. The moderating effect of I was significant. aggressive drivers with low internal locus of control would 153 .961. and R2 values changed after the I x AQ interaction was added in the regression models (R2=. R2=. p<.100.00 44.297. B=-.1 Internality as a Moderator Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that internality (I) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.6.131. In other words. Mean Score on Freeway Urgency Ethnicty 52. respectively. R2=.00 IndianMalaysian 48. Kurtosis=-. Study 1C and Study 3.01.076. F=100.271.645.01. Residuals Normality: Skewness=. F=81.12 Hypothesis 12: Locus of Control Moderates the Relationship between Aggression and Behaviour in Traffic 4.01.5: Interaction of Ethnicity and Verbal Aggression on Freeway Urgency 4. 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. p<.929.00 Malay ChineseMalaysian 50.05.01.significantly higher on freeway urgency than did Malaysian-Chinese automobile drivers with high VER scores.316.003.6. for Study 1B. Kurtosis=-. p<. B=-.12. p<.00 Low High Verbal Aggression Figure 4.00 42. and B=-.516.172.00 46.
694. and the moderating effects of C and P were significant.have higher BIT scores compared to drivers with high internal locus of control (see figure 4.12. respectively). F=94. R2=. Residuals Normality: Skewness= -. p<.015. the hierarchical regression revealed that externalitychance (C) and externality-powerful-others (P) moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT score.271. Effect for aggressive drivers with low internality score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with high internality score Aggression Level Figure 4.360.387. p<.794.507. R2=.271. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-.01.369. Kurtosis=.431.297.757. Consistent with the findings from Study 1B. This applied to both automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01.297. R2=. Kurtosis=. F=91.6).6.01 respectively. R2=. respectively).069.01.01 and B = . p<. R2=. and the moderating effects of C and P were 154 .2 Externality-chance and Externality-powerful-others as Moderators In Study 1B and Study 1C.088.01.117.109. p<. Kurtosis=-. p<.606. In Study 1B. p<.6: Moderating Effect of Internality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship 4. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-463. B = .704.015. Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. F=78.897. Kurtosis=-. R2=. F=71. R2 values changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=. R2 values in Study 1C changed after both the C x AQ and P x AQ interactions were added in the respective regression models (R2=.
This means that aggressive automobile drivers scoring high on either the C or P locus of control dimensions had higher total BIT scores than automobile drivers scoring low on either the C or P dimensions (see Figure 4. hierarchical regression results showed that neither C nor P moderated the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores for taxicab drivers in Study 3.1. H12.7: Moderating Effects of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship However. p<.01 respectively. that the internality.332.302. H12. R2 values did not change after either the C x AQ or P x AQ interactions were added in the regression models. with the samples of automobile drivers study for student car drivers. B = . Therefore. and H12. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 12 was supported in Studies 1B and 1C.2. 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.significant.01 and B = . and the moderation effect was not significant. p<. Effect for aggressive drivers with high externality scores BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low externality scores Aggression Level Figure 4.7). externality-chance and externality-powerful-others 155 .3.
885.05).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.dimensions of locus of control moderate the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores were supported. t(250) = 3. that internality moderates the relationship between aggression and total BIT scores was supported. 248) = 3.01. No significant differences were observed between age groups with respect to total HAT scores or to scores on any of the three HAT subscales.279. On the subscale measuring statements about revenge.05.05.05) or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower scores than IndianMalaysian automobile drivers (p<. male automobile drivers scored significantly higher on HAT subscales measuring statements about physical aggression.01). There were also significant differences between ethnic groups on subscale scores measuring statements about physical aggression F(2. Also.263. Post hoc analysis indicated that Chinese-Malaysian automobile drivers had significantly lower total HAT scores than either Malay or Indian-Malaysian automobile drivers (p<. 249) = 4. F(2. p<. 4. 156 .01 but not on about the derogation of others. with the sample of taxicab drivers.3. p<. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported in Study 3. 249) = 5.01 and revenge: t(249) = 3.314. ANOVA results showed that ethnic groups differed significantly with respect to mean total HAT scores. p<.01. Only H12. p<. H122 and H12. that externality-chance and externality-powerful-others moderates the relationship between aggression and BIT scores were not supported. p<. and about revenge F(2.343. p<. 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<. There were no significant differences between ethnic groups with respect to hostile statements about the derogation of others.05).1. t(249)=2.6. However.737.
that age would influence hostile automatic thoughts. p<.413. and also scores measuring the four BIT component factors: usurpation of right-of-way.364. were supported.01.3.14 Hypothesis 14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts Influence Behaviour in Traffic In Study 1C. H14.01. This means that. p<. H13. were supported. was not supported. (that thoughts about physical aggression. p<.01 and B = . derogation of others and revenge) positively influence total BIT scores. B = . 4. that gender and ethnicity respectively would have significant direct effects on hostile automatic thoughts. linear regression analyses indicated that total HAT scores predicted total BIT scores. the higher were total BIT scores. 157 . the higher the scores on the three classes of hostile automatic thought.1 and H13. B = . p<. freeway urgency.1. The effects of HAT subscales measuring the three classes of hostile automatic thoughts.6. B = . p<. that demographic variables would influence hostile automatic thoughts.307. p<. H13.277. B = . the higher were automobile drivers’ total BIT scores and scores on the four components. B = . with the sample of automobile drivers studied. the higher the total HAT scores. was supported. Linear regression analyses indicated that subscales measuring thoughts about physical aggression.2 and H14. derogation of others and revenge had a significant positive influence on total BIT scores in Study 1C B =. H14. that hostile automatic thoughts would influence behaviour in traffic. This means that.01. respectively.01.394. p<.01. externally-focused frustration.Therefore. B = .01.379.192. p<. was partially supported.2. on total BIT score were also tested.224. Therefore.01 and destination-activity orientation.3. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 14. it is concluded that the Hypothesis 13.
085).911.809.002. B = . p<. p<. Kurtosis=. F=57. p<. The R2 value changed after the HAT-Physical Aggression x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=.188. Kurtosis=. and the moderating effect of HAT-Physical 158 . Residuals Normality: Skewness=-. also moderated the relationship between aggression and BIT.565.8).01. Normality Residuals: Skewness=. 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. R2=.01.297.-554.05. 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. F=55.072).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.8: Moderating Effect of Externality on the Aggression-BIT Relationship It was observed that two of the HAT subscales. In other words. R2 values changed after the HAT x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. and the moderating effect of HAT was significant.4. Physical Aggression and Revenge.013.6. R2=.297. Effect for aggressive drivers with high HAT score BIT Level Effect for aggressive drivers with low HAT score Aggression Level Figure 4.
159 . Kurtosis=. F=59. The HAT subscale measuring thoughts about the derogation of others did not moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic. H15.092).026. p<. p<.207.3.2. B = . was not supported. H15.16 Summary of Hypothesis Testing The following table provides summarised results for the hypotheses and subhypotheses in this study (see Table 4. The R2 value also changed after the HATRevenge x AQ interaction was added in the regression model (R2=. Therefore. 4. that hostile statements about the derogation of others moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.Aggression was significant. Normality Residuals: Skewness=.1 and H15.01. and the moderating effect of HAT-Revenge was significant. p<. that hostile statements about physical aggression and revenge respectively moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.33). was supported.6. were supported.01.246. that total HAT score would moderate the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic.475.297.294. R2=. B = . However. it is concluded that Hypothesis 15.01.
S N.S 2 S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.4: Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H2: Driver characteristics will influence behaviour in traffic H2.S P.S S N.S S S N.1.2: Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S S P.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.1: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Internality S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S S S N.S N.S N.2.2: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.1: Gender will influence total BIT score H3.1: Gender will influence Locus of Control: Internality H4.S N.S N.2 :Freeway urgency will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.3: Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S P.2.S N.S P.33: Summarised Results of the Hypotheses and Sub-hypotheses STUDY 1A H1: BIT will have a positive influence on motor vehicle crash outcomes H1.S P. S N.S N.4:Destination-activity orientation will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S N.S S N.1.2: Ethnicity will influence total BIT score H3.S N.S S S S S S N.S N.2: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S S S S S N.1: Ethnicity will influence the Locus of Control: Internality H4.3:Externally-focused frustration will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.S S S S S N.S 3 P.2: Traveling frequency will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S N.Table 4.1: Driver experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H2.S S S S P.2.S S S N.S N.S S S S S N.S S N.S N.3: Gender will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H18.104.22.168: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.S N.S S S N.S P.S.S N.S N.S N.S S N.3.2: Taxicab experience will have a negative influence on total BIT score H3: Demographic variables will influence behaviour in traffic H3.S 1B S S S S S S S S S S S S S S P.1.S N.1.S N.S S S N.S N.2.3: Ethnicity influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H4.S 160 .S N.1: Total BIT score will have a positive influence on crash occurrence H1.2.3: Age will have a negative influence on total BIT score H4: Demographic variables will influence the Locus of Control H4.1: Usurpation of right-of way will have a positive influence on injury occurrence H1.2.S S S N.S P.S 1C P.
1: Hopelessness will moderate the Internality-BIT relation H9.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S N.S N.1: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Usurpation of right-of way H7.S N.3.S= Partially Supported.S N.S N.S N.S 161 .S N.S 2 N.S N.S N.2: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H7.3: Age will influence Hopelessness H6: Locus of Control will influence Hopelessness H6. blank=Not Applicable N.S P.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 S N.2: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Chance--BIT relationship H9.4: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Destination-activity Orientation H8: Locus of Control will influence behaviour in traffic H8.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.2: Ethnic background will influence of Hopelessness H5.S N.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on Hopelessness H6.S N.3: Hopelessness will moderate the Externality-Powerful-Others--BIT relationship H10: Demographic variables will influence aggression H10.S S S N.S P.1: Internality will have a negative influence on total BIT score H8.S N.S N.S S S S S S S N.S STUDY 1C N.S P.S N.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. P.S S S S S P.S P.S 3 N.2: Ethnic background will influence Aggression H10.3: Hopelessness will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H7.S N.S N.Table 4.S N.3: Age will have a negative influence on Aggression S=Supported.S S S N.1: Internality will have a negative influence on Hopelessness H6. N.3: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Powerful-Others H5: Demographic variables will influence Hopelessness H5.S S N.S S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H4.S P.S N.S S N.1: Gender will influence Hopelessness H5.S N.2: Age will influence the Locus of Control: Externality-Chance H4.S N.S N.S N.S= Not Supported.1: Gender will influence Aggression H10.S N.S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N.S S S S S S S S P.2: Externality-Chance will have a positive influence on total BIT H8.S 1B N.S N.S N.S N.S P.3.S N.
P.S P.1: Aggression will have a positive influence on usurpation of right-of way H11.2: Ethnic background will influence hostile automatic thoughts H13.S S N.S N.1: Internality will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: Age will have a negative influence on hostile automatic thoughts H14: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H14.S S S S S P.3: Thoughts about Revenge will have a positive influence on total BIT score H15: Hostile Automatic Thoughts will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.4: Aggression will have a positive influence on Destination-activity orientation H12: Locus of Control will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.2: Aggression will have a positive influence on Freeway urgency H11.S S S N.S N.S S S N. N.S= Partially Supported.3: Aggression will have a positive influence on Externally-focused frustration H11.S 162 .2: Thoughts about the Derogation-of-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.1: Gender will have a positive influence on hostile automatic thoughts H13.2: Externality-Chance will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H12.1: Thoughts about Physical Aggression will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H15.2: Thoughts about the Derogation of Others will have a positive influence on total BIT score H14.3: Thoughts about Revenge will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship S=Supported.S= Not Supported.S S 2 3 P. blank=Not Applicable 1B S S S S S S S S S STUDY 1C S S S S S S S S S P.Table 4.3: Externality-Powerful-Others will moderate the Aggression-BIT relationship H13: Demographic variables will influence Hostile Automatic Thought s H13.S S N.33 (Continued) 1A H11: Aggression will have a positive influence on behaviour in traffic H11.
163 . C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Of the six models tested. hopelessness or subtracting the latent variables in order to obtain the optimal goodness-of-fit index. Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT).97 63.90 110. F2.93 . This contextual mediated model was tested six times and the goodness-of-fit indices for these models are indicated in Table 4. F3 F1. Aggression (AQ). BHS. 2002).7.f.96 RMSEA .068 . and (3) crash occurrence and injury occurrence as outcome. AQ. AQ. freeway urgency. Study 2: motorcycle driver. F3. 4.g. F3. Externality Chance (C). P I. F2. P. F3.58 35.093 . HAT I. AQ. P.045 . F2. BHS. externality (Chance) and externality (Powerful-Other) as distal context factors. Three studies (Study 1C: automobile driver. F4 F1. C.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. F2. C. C. C. F4 F1. All proposed models measured: (1) internality. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). (2) usurpation of right-of-way. 23 28 33 38 24 33 p-value GFI . F3. BHS I. 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. P. C. two were worthy of further examination. P. F2.93 .93 . e.00000 . externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation as proximal context factors. Hopelessness.05522 . F3.00111 .96 . HAT Proximal Factors F1. F4 F1. P.1 Study 1C The contextual mediated model in this study was tested with four distal factors – Locus of Control.00126 . HAT I.00000 .00000 .34.4. Hopelessness (BHS). AQ and Hostile Automatic Thought (HAT). F4 F1.80 104.102 .52 (Jöreskog and Sörbom. AQ I.087 . Model 1C5 had better fit but necessitated dropping one of the component factors. freeway urgency (F2). Table 4. Externality Powerful-Other (P). These models were re-specified by adding different proximal context factors.97 .02 d.38 100.060 Note: Internality (I).34: SEM Comparison (Study 1C) Distal Factors 1C1 1C2 1C3 1C4 1C5 1C6 I. F4 χ2 49. F2.
.42.=33.97.destination-activity orientation (F4). values for these additional indices were: NFI=. Externality (Powerful-Other).3. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.92) on accident involvement. Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thought had effects on BIT.99) and constituted the best fit of all six of the tested models.10).23 respectively (see Figure 4.045. Externality (Powerful-Other).060. .043.51 and PGFI=.f. with path coefficients = -.22 respectively (see Figure 4.043. RMSEA=. of the BIT score.13.96. ECVI=. GFI=. ECVI=.26. AGFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality.26. To aid this discussion. For Model C6.35.5. retained all four of the BIT component factors and fit indices were acceptable. RMR=.98). The five distal variables accounted for 70% of the variance in BIT scores.97. goodness-of-fit was characterised as very good (χ2=63. CFI=. which are detailed in sect.14. .f. Making a decision to select one of these models over the other raised a number of interesting points. 22.214.171.124). and PGFI=. CFI=. . RMSEA=.28 and .29 and .32. For Model C5. but not as good as for C5.48. An alternate model. The five distal variables accounted for 67% of the variance in BIT scores. For Model C6. AGFI=. . d. Externality (Chance). The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. subsequent additional analysis was carried out to calculate a range of comparative fit indices. Externality (Chance). goodness-of-fit was characterised as excellent (χ2=35. values were: NFI=. d. RMR=. GFI=. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that all possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant: Internality. 164 .96. .92) on accident involvement.02. with path coefficients = -.94.42.=24. For Model C5. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. C6.
99 P-value = .51* .97 GFI=.043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=35. *p<.58* .9: Contextual Mediated Model 1C5 (Three BIT Factors) 165 . BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .045 RMR=.29* Aggression (AQ) .79* .f =24 CFI=. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.97 d.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.005522 N=252 RMSEA=.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.57* Injury Occurrence .63* .32* Externality (Chance) .92* Accident Involvement .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 .
Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Internality -.10: Contextual Mediated Model 1C6 (Four BIT Factors) 166 .58* Injury Occurrence . BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.56* .29* Aggression (AQ) . *p<.26* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) . BITF2=Freeway Urgency.92* Accident Involvement .043 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.f =33 CFI=. BITF4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.22* Hostile Automatic Thought Model Statistics χ2=63.96 d.060 RMR=.05 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.50* .13* Externality (Powerful Other) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .63* .00126 N=252 RMSEA=.02 GFI=.98 P-value = .77* .39* .31* Externality (Chance) .
F2.f. HAT-R Proximal Factors F1.In addition. Verbal aggression (VER). Hostile Automatic Thought-Revenge(HAT-R). ANG. F4 F1. HAT-R PHY.00111 . F3. the final model has provided a reasonable fit to the data (χ2=153. the contextual mediated model was tested using Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts and their latent variables (component factors) as distal context factors. using automobile drivers sampled in Study 1C. Hostility (HOS).41 d. VER.91 . HAT-D. RMSEA=. Angry (ANG).00000 . freeway urgency (F2).94 169. HOS. Hostile Automatic Thought-Physical aggression (HAT-P). HOS.92 . F3 F1.f. VER. F4 χ2 108.91 . Hostile Automatic Thought was found to have a direct effect on the AQ (path coefficient=.91 . HAT-D.65 and . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=. F2. d. 167 . IND. VER. ANG. ANG.00000 . IND. GFI=. Aggression (AQ).66 131. HAT-R PHY.35: Different Contextual Models (Study 1C) Distal Factors PHY.35).084 . HAT-D. F3 F1.41. F3. path coefficients = .66).080 .91. HOS. F4 F1. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) As depicted in Figure 4. IND.80) on the accident involvement. Hostile Automatic Thought-Derogation of others (HAT-D). HAT-P. ANG. HAT-P. HOS.078. F2. The proposed contextual mediated model was tested five times (see Table 4. F2.13 respectively. HAT-P.66 153. F2.078 Note: Physical aggression (PHY). IND PHY. 42 61 50 61 61 p-value . HOS. HAT-P. The results for the goodness-offit indexes are shown as follows: Table 4. IND.95).=61. Indirect aggression (IND).10. CFI=. HAT-R PHY.93 .73 169. HAT-D.081 . ANG. F3.084 .00000 GFI RMSEA . 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).00000 . Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).
078 RMR=. *p<.41 GFI=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.058 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.11: Contextual Mediated Model Study 1C (Aggression and Hostile Automatic Thoughts) 168 .62* .13* Model Statistics χ2=153.83* .63* Indirect Aggression .95 P-value = .f =61 CFI=.000 N=252 RMSEA=.69* Anger .29* Hostility .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome Physical Aggression . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.05 .61* . BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.65* .58* .60* Injury Occurrence Physical Aggression .80* Accident Involvement .91 d.90* Derogation of Other Hostile Automatic Thought .72* .65* Crash Occurrence Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .82* Revenge BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.68* Aggression (AQ) BIT1 BIT2 BIT3 BIT4 .66* .
Hopelessness (BHS).12). F2. Externality Chance (C).94. d. Compared to the Study 1 for student car drivers. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1).98).33 33.95 . p-value GFI RMSEA I.047. the final model for the student motorcycle drivers did not include hopelessness.07580 . The proposed contextual mediated model was tested three times (see Table 4. Externality Powerful-Other (P). The four distal variables accounted for 49% of the variance in BIT. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) The model including Locus of Control has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=29. C. GFI=. P. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that three paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. F3 F1.65 and .062 Note: Internality (I).94 .f.36: Different Contextual Models (Study 2) Distal Factors Proximal Factors χ2 29. 169 . P.94 . F3. F4 39. F2.86 23 28 23 . freeway urgency (F2). RMSEA=. The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors. P I.06722 . path coefficients = -. the participants were motorcycle drivers.f. C.66) on the accident involvement.7.36). The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. Internality and Externality (Chance) the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) but not Externality (PowerfulOther). F2.058 .2 Study 2 In Study 2.=28.80 respectively (see Figure 4.047 .12. F3. BHS F1. C.17631 . F4 F1. BHS I. The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.12 d.4. CFI=.
12 GFI=.046 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.78* .80* Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way.95 d.047 RMR=.99 P-value = .57* Internality -.66* Accident Involvement Externality (Powerful Other) . *p<.Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .70* BIT4 .12: Contextual Mediated Model Study 2 170 .88* Crash Occurrence .83* BIT3 .05 Injury Occurrence Model Statistics χ2=29.f =23 CFI=.65* Externality (Chance) . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.17631 N=122 RMSEA=. BIT2=Freeway Urgency.89* .
22 23 . AQ F1. P.37: Different Contextual Models (Study 3) Distal Factors I.=21.061 Note: Internality (I). P. F3. the participants were taxi drivers.061. Hopelessness (H). The contextual mediated model was tested using locus of control and hopelessness as distal context factors.03084 . F2. Usurpation of right-of-way (F1). F4 50. The investigation of structural path parameters indicated that two out of four possible paths from the distal context to the proximal context were significant. This contextual mediated model was tested four times (see Table 4.13).59 17 .3 Study 3 In Study 3. F4 Crash Occurrence 31. C.027 I. C. Externality Powerful-Other (ExPo). Externality Chance (ExC). C. externally-focused frustration (F3) and destination-activity orientation (F4) Model included locus of control. AQ F1.40) on the accident involvement. RMSEA=.079 Injury Occurrence I. p-value GFI RMSEA Crash Occurrence.f.00524 .7.068 Injury Occurrence Crash Occurrence. F3.37). Internality and AQ. F4 Crash Occurrence 18. AQ and only crash occurrence as outcome has provided the best goodness-of-fit to the data (χ2=31. GFI=. have effects on the Behaviour in Traffic (BIT). freeway urgency (F2). d.95 . The four distal variables accounted for 12% of the variance in BIT. The goodness-of-fit indexes for these models are shown as follow: Table 4. but not Externality. F2. AQ F1.35265 . The BIT displayed a significant effect (path coefficient=.95). F3.39.f. F3. 171 . path coefficients = -. P Proximal Factors F1.82 28 .4. F2.97 .93 .95.39 21 . CFI=.20 respectively (see Figure 4.20 and . F2. 37. I. F4 Outcomes χ2 d. C.06743 .94 .
BIT2=Freeway Urgency.20* Externality (Chance) .74* -.61* BIT4 . *p<.39 GFI=.63* BIT3 .40* Crash Occurrence Externality (Powerful Other) .Distal Context Proximal Context Outcome BIT1 BIT2 .03 Behaviour in Traffic (BIT) .06743 N=133 RMSEA=.39* Internality -.f =21 CFI=.20* Aggression (AQ) Model Statistics χ2=31.05 BIT1=Usurpation of Right-of way. BIT4=Destination-Activity Orientation Figure 4.13 .95 P-value = . BIT3=Externally-Focused Frustration.95 d.13: Contextual Mediated Model Study 3 172 .061 RMR=.053 Note: Values showed are path coefficients.
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 4.4. 4. (4) the relationship between hostile automatic thoughts and accident involvement were tested using the four-step procedure proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986). (2) the relationship between locus of control and accident involvement.39). Step 3=mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 2 and 3 are satisfied. Therefore.1 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes In all studies. and. Not applicable = mediating effect could only be tested when conditions in Step1.38). Step2=independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable. 4.8. BIT was a complete mediator for the relationship between AQ total score and crash occurrence. consistent with path analysis results.8. the mediating effect of BIT on hopelessness and crash outcomes relationship could not be estimated.8 Testing Mediational Relationships Using SPSS The mediating effects of BIT on: (1) the relationship between hopelessness and accident involvement. Table 4. (3) the relationship between aggression and accident involvement. 173 . 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.38: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hopelessness and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates HopelessnessCrash Occurrence Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 BIT mediates the HopelessnessInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Step 1=independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator. hopelessness did not significantly influence the crash outcomes (see Table 4.
Exceptions to this were found only with respect to the relationship between P and both crash outcomes in Study 1A. where the 174 . Table 4.8. in Studies 1A.8.41).3 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcome The regression results showed that the BIT partially mediated the relationship between hostile automatic thought and crash outcomes (see Table 4.BIT was a partial mediator for the relationship between aggression and injury occurrence.40). 1B and 1C. Externality-Chance (C) and Externality-PowerfulOthers – and crash outcomes (See Table 4.40: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Hostile Automatic Thought and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1C BIT mediates Hostile Automatic Thought-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1C Step 1 Significant Step 1 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 2 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 3 Significant Step 4 Partial Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator 4. behaviour in traffic (BIT) had complete or partial mediating effects on the relationship between the three locus of control dimensions – Internality (I). Table 4.39: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Aggression and Crash Outcomes BIT mediates Aggression-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C BIT mediates AggressionInjury Occurrence Relation Study 1B Study 1C Step 1 Significant Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 2 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Step 4 Complete Mediator Complete Mediator Step 4 Partial Mediator Complete Mediator 4.4 BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes For automobile drivers.
BIT had no mediating effects on the relationship between I. BIT had a complete mediating effect on the relationship between C and both crash outcomes. For motorcycle drivers in Study 2.mediating effect of BIT total scores could not be estimated because requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. C or P and the two crash outcomes. With respect to the relationship between I and the crash outcomes and the relationship between P and the crash outcomes. no mediating effect of BIT could be estimated since requisite conditions in the second step of the analysis were not satisfied. Table 4. For taxicab drivers in Study 3.41: 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 .
665. Study 1A vs. Study 1C vs.442.05.9.9 Comparison of Automobile Drivers. Automobile drivers also scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers on C. 1B and 1C scored significantly lower on hopelessness than did motorcycle drivers.663. Study 1B vs. Study 1A vs. scores for distal variables (locus of control and hopelessness).1 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Motorcycle Drivers In a subsequent analysis. Study 2: t(421)= -4.01.993. Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers 4. With respect to the three dimensions of locus of control. p <. Study 1B vs. Study 2: t(422)= 8. Study 2: t(422)= -2. Study 1A vs.01. 176 . Study 2: t(372)= 8.01.Table 4.01. There was no significant difference in scores on the P dimension between automobile drivers and motorcycle drivers.837. p <. Study 1C vs.01. p <.426. Study 2: t(421)= 7. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -3. p <. p <.01. automobile drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on I. It was found that there were significant differences in scores for hopelessness. Automobile drivers in Studies 1A.41: BIT Mediates the Relationship between Locus of Control and Crash Outcomes (Continued) BIT mediates P-Crash Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 BIT mediates P-Injury Occurrence Relation Study 1A Study 1B Study 1C Study 2 Study 3 Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 1 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 2 Not Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Step 3 Significant Significant Significant Significant Not Significant Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable Step 4 Not Applicable Partial Mediator Partial Mediator Not Applicable Not Applicable 4. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. 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 2.162.
Study 2: t(372)= -5.01. Study 1C vs. Also.211.433. p <. t(986)= 3. p <. t(253) = 2.01. Study 1A vs. p <.977. Study 1C vs.01.261. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in injury occurrence.402. p <.01. taxicab drivers scored higher than automobile drivers on the I dimension. p <. Study 2: t(421)= -3. t(986)= 7. Study 1A vs. Automobile drivers scored higher that taxicab drivers on total BIT scores.687. respectively. p <.747. automobile drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers with respect to crash occurrence. and on all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. 177 .01. t(986)= 5. p <. t(986)= 6. t(986)= 30. Study 2: t(421)= -8. Study 2: t(372)= -6.Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers with respect to the total BIT score.01. t(253)= 8. Study 1C vs. Study 1A vs. 4.01. Study 1B vs.200. p <.01. t(986)= 34. Automobile drivers scored significantly lower than motorcycle drivers in crash occurrence.01.01. Study 2: t(421)= -7. p <. “freeway urgency”.9.801.186.01. p <. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.775. p <.484. p <.577.01. Study 2: t(422)= -6. p <. p <.2 Differences between Automobile Drivers and Taxicab Drivers With respect to locus of control. and to injury occurrence. There were no differences between motorcycle drivers and taxicab drivers on the P dimension. Motorcycle drivers scored higher than taxicab drivers on C. 4.01.837.9. and t(986)= 35. There were no significant differences scores on either C or P between the automobile drivers and taxicab drivers.01.704.01. p <.01. Study 2: t(422)= -4. p <. Study 2: t(372)= -7.926.3 Differences between Motorcycle Drivers and Taxicab Drivers Taxicab drivers scored higher than motorcycle drivers on the I locus of control dimension.861.01.01.614. p <. p <. t(986)= 37. Study 1B vs.
p <. t(253)= 11. t(253)= 35.01. p <.01.Motorcycle drivers had higher total BIT scores than taxicab drivers. 178 . t(253)= 31.977.881. p <. t(253)= 39. “externally-focused frustration” and “destination-activity orientation”.01.01. and t(253)= 37. p <. “freeway urgency”.01.016.946. Also.01and to injury occurrence. and all four BIT subscales: “usurpation of right-of way”. p <. respectively.737. drivers scored higher with respect to crash occurrence.982. p <. t(253)= 8.567. t(253)= 8.01. p <.
2. Composite BIT scores were comprised of measures of usurpation of right-ofway.1). including gender.1 A Contextual Mediated Model for Understanding Factors Influencing Unsafe Driving Traffic psychologists. 1991). Papacostas and Synodinos (1988) investigated four dimensions of driving behaviour conceptually related to the Type A behaviour pattern (TABP). exerting weaker influence or more equivocal results than anticipated (Dewar. freeway urgency..CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5. Often. Elander et. ethnic and driver experience differences with respect to 179 . in which a set of personality and demographic factors are thought to exert effects. Elander et al. human factors that conceptually might be expected to have a strong influence over driving behaviour and crash occurrence end up. Parker (2004) and others have stressed the importance of examining crash causation from a broader. upon examination. They found gender. The present research applied Sümer’s concept of a contextual mediated model.2. al. In an earlier study. multi-factorial perspective. Evans. 1993. 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. While it has been generally assumed and frequently stated that driver characteristics. road engineers and ergonomists interested in motor vehicle safety have tried for a long time to understand the role played by human factors in determining traffic safety outcomes. in which the roles played by variables in mediating and moderating effects of personality factors are more closely examined than in the past. researchers have been frequently frustrated when attempting to quantify the effects of psycho-social variables on either driving behaviour or crash outcomes. 1995. (1993). 2002b).4. externally-focused frustration and destination-activity orientation.
but did not examine the effects of BIT scores on crash outcomes. BIT. A rich variety of individual factors exists which. in the deterministic sense in which it is used in the physical sciences or engineering. which somewhat complicates our attempt to stay true to our title: “Cause and Prevention of Roadway Crashes”. But findings were more complex than that. 1991). and did so in all cases but hopelessness. Further. particularly between psychological variables and crash outcomes. As a result. Results reported here suggest an elaborate relationship. In the present research. Since high BIT scores indicated driving behaviour consistent with TABP. 180 . BIT composite scores are also expected to mediate the effects of locus of control.total BIT score and component scores. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts on crash and injury occurrence. for automobile drivers and motorcyclists. the term “cause” conveys the notion of a single causative element. Every aspect of the traffic system is in some way connected to every other aspect. except with taxicab drivers. hopelessness. Type A individuals were significantly more likely to have found themselves involved in traffic crashes and. All too often. it predicted self-reported injury occurrence in all cases. if different. This was true with respect to both the composite BIT score and individual scores of each of the four component factors. significantly predicted selfreported crash occurrence in all replications and with all classes of drivers studied. The matrix proposed by Haddon (1972) is one example. the proximal variable. alter the outcome or probability of occurrence of crashes and these have been classified into broad categories using different schemes (Evans. In the contextual mediated model. is that factors interact with each other. In other words. One recurrent complexity that arises when trying to understand traffic safety. BIT scores are considered proximal to the crash event. though. were significantly more likely to have been injured while driving.
… 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. 126.96.36.199). 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
there are other possible influences. traffic exposure and other variables on the effects that internality and externality exert on driving behaviour. internals reported that they engaged in safer behaviour in traffic. SD=11.63. SD=1. Because of occupational demands. This would be an error more likely to be made by younger novice or less experienced drivers.66) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (20.7 months.25 years. SD=22. social trust and norms that promote coordination and cooperation.2 years.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. the continued operation of their vehicle is fundamental to their livelihood so motivational factors may take precedence over attributions of external control.10) than the automobile drivers and motorcyclists (28. it might be assumed that taxicab drivers could well have a broader social network.1 months. affected driving behaviour and decisions about the use of public roads. respectively). For taxicab drivers. and 36. By virtue of their age and occupation.6 months as licensed drivers. as well. the extent to which an individual is connected to others through interpersonal networks. In the present study. although driving frequency was not measured for taxicab drivers.3. Further research is needed to examine the influence of driving experience.1. Of course. 5. SD=.01years. respectively). For taxicab drivers. SD=131. it might also be assumed that their traffic exposure was greater than that of the students. Inclán.16. They were also more experienced (266. 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. SD=1. taxicab drivers were considerably older (43. Malaysian-Indian automobile 187 . but the externality-chance dimension had no significant effect.hierarchy.5. 20.53. Hijar and Tovar (2005) have noted that social capital. as it did with the less experienced university students in the other groups.
2003. With the Indian-Malaysian sample studied in the present research. spousal selection. it is easy to see how expectancies for the external control of life outcomes can develop. corrupt practices. The finding that Indian- 188 . in terms of political ideology and interaction with the social system. Participants scored high in terms of attributions about the controlling nature of fate and powerful others. for support in effecting the life outcomes that are important to them. 2005). Since perceived success under such circumstances might be expected to be largely due to personal proficiency in such areas. Research completed some thirty years earlier by Carment (1974) found that university students in India were strongly internally-controlled. financial matters and social affiliations are made. There were no significant differences between Malay and Malaysian-Chinese participants on any of the three locus of control dimensions. that the Indian students were strongly external with respect to matters in their personal life. Devashayam.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). or at least strongly influenced by outside forces. findings with regard to locus of control differed from Carment’s (1974) earlier results. which would have led young Indians to perceive that skills in overcoming systemic barriers. however. He explained this by pointing to the close and interdependent Indian family structure. 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. were necessary to succeed. individuals would be more likely to develop attributions of internal control. influence peddling and status-related privileges. Carment (1974) also found. In an environment where career choice. rife with bureaucracy. to cultural values of intra-family dependency and parental influence that have persisted within the Tamil and other Indian communities in Malaysia (Abdullah & Peterson. perhaps due as argued earlier. when compared to Canadian students. along with selfpromotion skills.
Closer proximity of cultural groups can be assumed to increase contact and transmission of knowledge and awareness of value systems (Hofstede.5% annually from 9. Willford (2003) concluded that Indian-Malaysians.3. 1999. including locus of control. although they were consistent with more recent research by Sinha & Watson (2007). and. This is consistent with recent findings among Malay and Chinese ethnic groups in Singapore. the reasons for this commonality in outlook are probably multi-factorial. 5.5 million in 1991 to 11.Malaysian participants scored lower in internality was contrary to Carment’s earlier conclusions with individuals from India. 2002. Again. the proportion of the population residing in urban areas increased from 51% in 1991 to 55.7 in 1996. than between Singaporean-Chinese and Chinese participants from China. The size of the urban population in Malaysia increased by 4. as a result. Indeed. by extension. Gomez. Sendut.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. there is considerable evidence that the socio-political environment in current-day Malaysia is different from that of India in the mid-1970s (Corbridge & Kumar. The first of these is the steady rate of urbanisation which began in the early-1960s and has continued through the last three decades (Gomez.8 million in 1996. (2006) found greater commonalities in personality traits. as a group. 1999. where Cheung et al. 1998. Armstrong (1987) argued that urbanisation has affected 189 . In reference to Carment’s explanation of the earlier results. an internal locus of control. Salih &Young. 1999) where one’s skills at manipulating the system may have fostered a need for greater internal control. 1966. 1999). 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. 1981). but two possible influences stand out. have been largely limited from participation in social and political processes that would necessitate that sort of social skill development and. Nandy.
318). Huff. Oetting & Salvatore.women’s friendship patterns. bringing them closer together in outlook. driving in a more urgent fashion and concentrating more on destination activities than on road and traffic 190 . aggression had a strong influence on behaviour in traffic. Parkinson. 5. Brown (2007) has examined educational practices in Malaysia within the context of ethnicity and nation-building. Consistently. among automobile drivers and motorcyclists. Jenkins. 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. Lawton & Nutter. Nonetheless. 2000. 2002). more recently. by the enraged driver. King & Parker. 2008. The second factor toward reducing differences between ethnic groups may be related to government efforts promoting a multi-cultural scripting of the national identity (Bunnell. feeling more frustrated at external sources. there is a large body of evidence that aggression plays a significant role in unsafe driving behaviour and in crash outcomes (Deffenbacher. 2001) In the present research. 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. 2003. Lynch. 2002. Government initiatives have aimed at re-positioning Malaysia as a highly networked information economy and society. Miles & Johnson.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. participants scoring higher on a measure of total trait aggression reported driving patterns that involved right-ofway violations. including perhaps attributions about the control of events. Miller & Rodgers. Dukes. 2001. in which members of ethnic groups are encouraged to adopt a ‘Malaysian outlook’ on life. Clayton.
Further. Male drivers tended to score higher than female drivers with respect to total aggression. Parker. there are only a few that have attempted to explore the mechanism through which external or cognitive contexts trigger the effect.conditions. While there are plenty of studies establishing the link between aggression and driving behaviour. but had no significant effect on externally-focused frustration or destination oriented activity. (2003) found that drivers engaging in hostile automatic thoughts tended to report more aggressive and riskier driving. Deffenbacher. Angry and aggressive driving episodes have been related to hostile cognitive statements that drivers make. Underwood et al. found that drivers were more likely to report anger when congestion was present. With taxicab drivers. either verbally or as unspoken thoughts (“self-talk”). verbal aggression and indirect aggression. Petrilli et al. (1999) found that near accidents provoked feelings of anger. on a journey by journey basis. Finland and the Netherlands. Oetting et al. physical aggression. Underwood et al. higher aggression levels related to a strong tendency to commit right-of-way violations and to drive more urgently. 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. but that there was no evidence that the drivers who generally experienced higher level of congestion also experienced more anger. Lajunen & Summala (2002) similarly found that traffic density may play a role in triggering anger and aggression among drivers sampled in three countries: Great Britain. the more dangerously they behaved in traffic. during such incidents. (1996) and Deffenbacher. particularly where drivers felt that they were not at fault in the incident. but there were no gender differences with respect to anger or hostility. 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”). a little less strongly when they thought about taking revenge (“I want to get back at this person”) and least 191 .
perceiving another person’s slow driving as purposeful may lead to the emotional experience of anger. one’s interpretations of the environment lead one to react emotionally toward features within the environment (Galovski et al. however.. The effects of aggression on behaviour. and (c) cognitive distortions (ways in which people misinterpret their environment).strongly. and that cognitive event in turn triggers an aggressive or punitive type of traffic behaviour. Such responses. In essence. a cognitive distortion which stimulates a cognitive response related to physical aggression or revenge. These moderating effects were significant when the content of the cognitions involved physical aggression or revenge motives. Drivers who scored high in aggression and who entertained more frequent hostile automatic thoughts about others tended to report driving patterns in traffic that were less safe than drivers who scored high in aggression but who entertained less frequent hostile automatic thoughts. were also modified by the drivers’ locus of control. 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 . (b) schemas (underlying general assumptions about life). Not only did drivers’ angry cognitions have a direct effect on their behaviour in traffic. as well. 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. 2006). when entertaining cognitive statements that made derogatory comments (“What an idiot!”) about other drivers. but they were found to moderate the effects of aggression on behaviour in traffic. although still significantly. in the samples studied here. 1997).. the world and others). but not when they involved the derogation of others. would be most likely to involve the usurpation of right-of-way or more urgent speeding behaviour. Each class of hostile automatic thought can be thought to represent a reaction to these three factors (Snyder et al. That is.
e. aggressive drivers of both automobiles and of taxicabs who had low levels of internality (i. or self-talk. “in ergonomics. has been shown to be difficult to process (Dodge & Coie. and also by attributions regarding locus of control. 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. The relationship between aggression and driving behaviour is both important and complex. but there may be more to it than that. This last finding replicated and extended earlier research by Gidron et al. 1979. It is moderated by cognitive processes. Similarly. true to operant learning principles. Generally. Meichenbaum. Hochschild. like any other mental task. and particularly with negative emotion. 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.are determined by chance or fate.. 1987. p. the original cognitive behaviourists tended to regard cognitive statements as internal mental stimuli that. 1990. 1994. so I’ll overtake him/her at high speed on the inside and feel great – i. receive positive reinforcement – when I see the shocked look on his/her face!”). this process may be instrumental in the relationship between aggression and behaviour in traffic (“I’d like to knock his/her teeth out.e. 401). (2003). Downe & Loke. 2004. 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. 1977). Novaco.. A driver’s mental workload is increased by the number of task demands with which one must contend in performing a function and. Certainly. has a workload associated with it” (Bridger. Finally. 1995. evoked specific behavioural responses that then became subject to contingent reinforcement (Kanfer & Goldstein. Language loaded with emotional content. 193 . language comprehension can be regarded as a mental task which. in the form of hostile automatic thoughts.
Stein. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this relationship is best explained through an internal stimulus-response process. 2002. Martin. and at the same time processing feelings of responsibility arising from one’s internal locus of control requires the investment of mental effort. 1979) and disruptive to attentional processing of external stimuli (Adolphs. and attempting to exercise control over. 1999. they may well reach a “red line” at which more mental effort is required than is available. 2002. Making sense of. As the costs of achieving or maintaining a certain target level of performance increase. 2000. internal locus of control and tendencies toward more dangerous behaviour in traffic. an overburdening of cognitive workload capacity or both. Watson & Wan. 2005). In fact. Hinojosa.1) defined multivariate thinking as “a body of thought processes that illuminate interrelatedness between and within sets of variables” and proposed that 194 . Tavris (1989) referred to anger as the “misunderstood emotion”. subject to ambiguous interpretation (Chan. lane control in driving) will drop if effort investment is insufficient or ceases. Lambie & Marcel. Taylor & Fragopanagos. 1993). Mercado & Tapia. Carretie. aggressive emotionality. 1997). as well as other task demands of driving in traffic.Robbins. p. 2004. This can happen both in conditions of very high task demand and in conditions where the driver’s state is affected (p. Trabasso & Liwag. MartinLoeches. As drivers contend with heightened feelings of aggression and increased internal chatter. The present research has demonstrated linkages between hostile automatic thoughts. 2000. Dien. Performance (e. As de Waard (2002) has argued: There are limits to the investment of effort.1 Advantages of Using SEM Harlow (2005. Tomkins.5.. 162). 1996. so too does the mental effort required (de Waard & Brookhuis. 5.5 Testing the Contextual Mediated Model Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) 5.g. hostile automatic thoughts.
EQS and AMOS. When composing a model. In addition. or latent. researchers are attracted to the benefits that SEM can offer.434). According to Williams. Karl Jöreskog. 2006). the growth in application of SEM techniques has paralleled researchers’ access to computer based data analysis software programs such as LISREL. variables but also determine which specific predictors are most important in predicting dependent variable outcomes (Maruyama. including dependent and independent variables. the reliability of measurement can thus be accounted for explicitly within the analysis. p.. the SEM depicts all of the relationships among constructs. SEM is deemed to be a unique combination of factor analysis and multiple regression analysis (Hair et al. SEM appears to be the only technique capable of examining a set of relationships simultaneously when the phenomena of interest are complex and multidimensional (Hardy and Bryman. using SEM to examine relationships among factors allows the relationships to be free from measurement errors “because the error has been estimated and removed. 2006). or dependent. 2004. 2004. First. leaving only common variance” (Hardy and Bryman. Having the characteristics of multiple regression analysis. 2000).multivariate methods provide a richer and more comprehensive examination on the variables. The earliest use of SEM has been attributed to Swedish Statistician. The constructs may be comprised of unobservable. factors represented by multiple variables. 195 ... a multivariate technique. 1998). and perhaps most important. advanced the idea of combining features of econometrics and psychometrics into a single model (Klem. SEM can not only tell how well the predictors. explain criterion. Gavin and Hartman (2004). similar to the variables representing factors in a factor analysis. allows the simultaneous estimation of multiple equations (Hair et al. Second. who in 1970. or independent variables. By estimating and removing measurement error. Hair et al. Finally. Structural equation modelling (SEM). 2006). involved in the analysis.
TLI.e. but that very few studies have used multiple fit indices. RMSEA or SMRM) One incremental fit index (i. Hult & Kacmar (2004) and Williams et al. Hair et al. 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.e.5. (2004) has been critical of most studies. (2006). the comparative fit index (CFI). Ketchen. there is a lack of consensus on how best to evaluate the extent to which a proposed model fits the data. Shook. etc) One badness-of-fit index (RMSEA. as suggested by Hair et al. model re-specification by citing theoretical support for the changes made is desired. several alternative models were tested against different propositions in order to arrive at a model with the best possible fit. It is therefore not practical to apply a single set of cutoff rules to the measurement models. Williams et al. when assessing the fits of measurement models. Hair et al added that the assessment of a model’s goodness-of-fit should include the following: The χ2 value and the associated df One absolute fit index (i. (2004) noted that. Sümer (2003) added that. In the present research. (2006) have argued that no single ‘magic value’ for the fit indices has been found to differentiate good from poor models. (2004) commented on inconsistencies in the way SEM results have been reported in the literature.5. fit indices such as chi-square statistics. despite the prominence of SEM as a statistical tool. Shook et al. etc) 196 . CFI or TLI) One goodness-of-fit index (GFI. the goodness of fit index (GFI).2 Goodness of Fit SEM is considered a confirmatory analysis for testing and potentially confirming theory. Although many researchers have used SEM to examine a theoretically proposed model. GFI. SRMR. and the root mean square residual were included. Therefore. CFI.
90. be a process that balances utility with statistical 197 . 2006) such that for analyses of sample sizes more than 250. RMSEA and the χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio.In the present research. 2003) and other disciplines (Elangovan.3 Best Fit or Best Model It is important to test multiple plausible rival models. it may be advisable to select one that offers the most useful information even if indices are slightly lower than its alternative. the model with the best goodness-of-fit indices is selected over alternate models. the fit indices for assessing the model included χ2 value and the associated df. RMSEA lower than . so that stronger evidence supporting the correct specification of a model can be adduced (Thompson. provided competing models both present a pre-determined standard for goodness-of-fit. we would argue. CFI and CFI) greater than . Structural equation modelling should. 1998. it has been stressed repeatedly by several authors no definitive set of rules has been established for model selection (Byrne.. both dealing with traffic psychology (Sümer.. 2001. Maruyama. GFI.00 have been recommended to indicate good model fit (Hair et al. Md-Sidin. This has become such a widely accepted principle that decisions over model selection have become almost automatic (Klem. 5. 2000). 2006). 1998). Fit index values (e. 2009) that have tended to select the model that has the best fit indices. CFI.. 2001.5. Sambasivan & Ismail. it should not be used as the sole indicator of SEM fit because it is affected by sample size (Hair et al. At the same time. Hair et al. 2006.08 and a χ2 /degrees of freedom ratio less than 3. Sümer (2003) reported that some researchers have used critical χ2 /degrees of freedom ratios from 2 to 5 to indicate an acceptable fit. As a general rule. significant p-values can be expected. It is widely agreed that selection of the model should be a very good or an excellent fit. 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. Although chi-square is the most fundamental absolute fit index. 2000) and there are many examples of research studies.g. It is argued here that.
Byrne (2001) argued that: Fit indexes yield information bearing only on the model’s lack of fit. destination-activity orientation. statistical. There is some support for this position in the literature. 88). while Model 1C6 (see Figure 4. they can in no way reflect the extent to which the model is plausible. of intervariable relationships for high-risk undergraduate automobile drivers were compared using an initial set of goodness-of-fit indices (see sect.10) excluded the fourth factor. a finding that was further supported by additional subsequent analyses using a further series of goodness-of-fit indices. when taking into consideration “practical considerations”. this judgment rests squarely on the shoulders of the research. However. More importantly. it is concluded that the selection of Model 1C5 would be preferable 198 .1. the choice between the two would be Model 1C6 given its superior index coefficients. 158). “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. Model 1C5 (see Figure 4.9) included all four components of the BIT scale. If selection criteria were to be based solely on goodness-of-fit parameters. In some cases. provided the chosen one meets pre-determined standards for goodness-of-fit. assessment of model adequacy must be based on multiple criteria that take into account theoretical. it makes sense to choose a model with a slightly poorer fit but more useful information over the best-fitting model. and practical considerations (p. In the case at hand. as suggested by Byrne (2001).soundness. Both models were judged to have an excellent or very good fit. Sobel and Bohrnstedt (1985) pointed out that exclusive reliance on goodness-of-fit indices is unacceptable. stating that.7. Index coefficients from the original and subsequent analysis are shown in Table 5.3). Thus. two structural equation models. 4. 1C5 and 1C6.
F3 & F4 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way. Given that multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between this BIT component and crash outcomes. P. Fit Statistics (Threshold values) Outcomes: Crash Occurrence. Injury Occurrence Degrees of Freedom RMSEA GFI Chi-sq/Df RMR AIC NFI CFI AGFI PGFI NCP ECVI Overall model fit 63. 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. F3 BITF1=Usurpation of Right-of way.97 1.02 0.99 0. F2.045 0. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration.42 11.91 0. AQ. C. P.51 Very Good Model 1C6 Distal Context: I.97 0.96 1.96 0.060 0. BITF2=Freeway Urgency.39 Best because it includes important information about destination-activity orientation behaviour that would be lost if Model 1C6 were chosen.Table 5. Injury Occurrence 35.034 97. BITF3=Externally-Focused Frustration. 199 . BITF2=Freeway Urgency. C.02 0.02 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.94 0. HAT Proximal Context: BITF1.97 0. AQ. F2.48 30.98 0.499 0.043 129.97 0.1: Goodness of Fit Statistics for Model 1C5 and 1C6 (Initial and Subsequent Analyses) Model 1C5 Distal Context: I.909 0. BITF4=DestinationActivity Orientation Outcomes: Crash Occurrence.97 0.
farther along. when variables do not improve the AGFI and PGFI. Sambasivan (2008) stated that. goodness-of-fit. while for Model 1C6. a central psychological feature of the TABP in driving is not overlooked and the BIT framework is kept intact. et al. provide the key to reducing injuries and saving lives (Reason. the decision was made to select Model 1C5 over Model 1C6. Nahn & Shapiro. Results of this and other research have demonstrated that. but still acceptable. one that favours the maximum use of information in the cause of saving lives. 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. 2006. By selecting Model 1C5. 1996). the PGFI coefficient for Model 1C5 is 0.It can be argued here that safety research demands a somewhat different standard in terms of model construction and selection. When dealing with systems that are safetycritical.1). (2006) have noted that models with a higher PGFI are preferable over competing models because they have a better fit relative to their complexity. this is an important component to retain in a contextual mediated model of behaviour in traffic even if it does render a lower. Reason. 2006). Further discussion in this section refers only to Model 1C5. it is 0. For practical reasons. when drivers do let their attention wander from current road and traffic conditions they are at increased risk of experiencing a crash outome (Moller. 1995. Parker. However. Manstead & Stradling. they should be dropped. in this analysis. 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. Storey. 1990. the standard should be to include as much relevant information as possible.48. Schwebel. Hair et al. based on the notion that each variable included may.. 200 . Kayumov.42. in particular.
They appeared to be the strongest predictors among the five distal factors (path coefficients = -. indicating that driving behaviour is closely related to involvement in motor vehicle crashes. the base model (with only locus of control variables) was compared against five alternative models (see section 4. 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. externality-powerful other. Internality was significantly but negatively correlated with BIT (r = -.45). aggression and hostile automatic thoughts) had significant effects on BIT scores (path coefficients = .21). The results suggested that the alternative model.5. Findings in this study underscored the strong role of BIT in predicting accidents.18) and injury occurrence (r = -.26. 2001. Examination of the predictive relationship between distal and proximal variables yielded support for the contextual model and were consistent with previous findings (e. Sümer.4 Testing the Contextual Mediated Models Using SEM 5. for automobile drivers sampled.5. As observed from the investigation of structural paths. crash occurrence (r = -.23 respectively) and the BIT displayed a significant effect on crash outcomes (path coefficient = .14. externality-chance. Evans.4. Total scores of BIT were significantly correlated with crash occurrence (r = .28 and . externalitychance. via BIT.g. on crash outcomes. 1991. 2003). This suggested that automobile drivers with high levels of 201 .35 and .66). four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. . In Study 1C. Rothengatter. . freeway urgency. and hostile automatic thoughts). aggression. internality and aggression had direct effects on BIT and indirect effects.34) and injury occurrence (r = .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. indicating the importance of this factor in crash outcomes. Distal factors (locus of control: internality.28 respectively). externally-focused frustration.35.6. with five distal factors (internality.29).1). externality-powerful other.5. .
25).23) and injury occurrence (r = . Aggression. on the other hand.internality were more likely to have low total BIT scores. was significantly and positively correlated with BIT (r = . crash occurrence (r = . The second alternative model also had four distal factors but only three latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. internality and externality-chance (path coefficients = -. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against two alternative models. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that only two of the distal factors. crash occurrence (r = . freeway urgency. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and two latent constructs (crash and injury occurrence) comprising the crash outcome variable. One of the most compelling findings in Study 2 was that externalitychance scores had the highest correlations with BIT (r = . with hopelessness removed as a distal factor but four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way.4. 5. The first alternative model had four distal factors (locus of control: internality.24).20) and injury occurrence (r = . which sampled motorcyclists. Results indicated that the first alternative model. Aggressive automobile drivers tended to have high level of BIT scores. as well as low probability of crash and injury occurrence.41). externally-focused frustration. This suggests that motorcyclists who believed that outcomes were determined by fate or chance tended to report engaging in riskier behaviour in traffic and had greater crash accident involvement. freeway urgency. externally-focused frustration.80) indirectly and the proximal factor-BIT (path coefficient = . 202 .65 and .66) directly predicted crash outcomes. freeway urgency and externally-focused frustration) for the proximal factor.55). externality-chance. and four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. and high probabilities of crash and injury occurrence. externality-powerful other and hopelessness).5. had a better fit than other alternative models.2 Study 2: Motorcyclists In Study 2. and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.
203 . Results indicated that the third alternative model. The second and third alternative models only had one latent construct.20 and . Finally. in turn and indirectly. crash occurrence.5. externally-focused frustration. The first alternative included four distal factors (internality.6. hopelessness. via BIT.3 Study 3: Taxicab Drivers In Study 3. Both dimensions of external locus of control had insignificant results. Distal factors. This suggested that internality and aggression play important roles in affecting the behaviour in traffic of taxicab drivers and. the results of measurement model analysis showed that one of the distal factors. such as internality. crash occurrence. externality-powerful other and aggression). and destination-activity orientation) as proximal factors.5 What Can be Learned from Testing Contextual Models with SEM? The use of SEM provided support for the contextual mediated model. had a better fit than alternative models. had no significant effect on BIT scores. freeway urgency. their crash occurrence.3). externality-powerful other.24 respectively) that had direct effects on the proximal factor and a simultaneous indirect effect on crash occurrence. four latent constructs (usurpation of right-ofway. aggression). on the two latent variables comprising crash outcomes. externally-focused frustration. All models included four latent constructs (usurpation of right-of-way. with the sample of taxicab drivers.5. 5. had significant direct effects on the four latent constructs that comprised the proximal variable (BIT) and. and destination-activity orientation) comprising the proximal factor and one latent construct (crash occurrence) comprising the outcome variable. For motorcyclists.4. Investigation of the path parameters revealed that there were only two of the four distal factors. However. externality-chance. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. the base model (with only the locus of control variable) was compared against three alternative models (see sect. to measure outcome. internality and aggression (path coefficients = -.5. as a result. for the sample of taxicab drivers. externality-chance. for crash outcomes. 4. with four distal factors (internality. freeway urgency. the bestfitting model used only a single latent construct. the result was slightly different as a belief in chance as an outcome determinant had a significant effect on BIT scores.
2004). “but sometimes it may be the only viable alternative when quick and timely information is needed” (pp. To a large extent. four of which were comprised of students from a single university. however.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. Huguenin. 278279). In the present research. chosen at random from taxi stands. 2005). The fifth sample was comprised of professional taxicab drivers. the fact remains that participants constituting the four student samples were. Further. a total of five samples were taken. an argument used by Montag & Comrey (1978) and others who have studied young drivers. An important question then becomes: Were the participants in Studies 1 and 2 representative of a high-risk population of young Malaysian drivers? This can be answered in terms of age and the geographic location from where participants received their driving licenses. the present research was intended as an initial attempt to examine the influence of psycho-social variables on driving behaviour and crash outcomes among a given high risk sample. 2005. 204 . With very few studies having been completed on Malaysian drivers to date. by virtue of their age and driving experience within the highest risk group.6 5.5. Some authors have commented on the lack of generalisability of findings in traffic psychology research (Dunbar. both and particularly the student samples constituted a convenience sample that may have curtailed the generalisability of findings. Sekaran (2003) points out. that convenience sampling is indeed the least reliable of all sampling designs in terms of generalisability.
31. The most populous state. while Malacca and Negeri Sembilan were overrepresented. Study 1C: 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.In Malaysia. Study 1B: 100%. individuals usually obtain their license in the state in which they are registered as resident. as elsewhere. Selangor. Ages of participants in this research ranged from 18 to 29 years. With regard to whether the sample was representative of peoples of the various states and regions of Malaysia. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient for these two sets of scores is rs=. Sarawak and Kelantan were under-represented in the sample. during the interval from 2000 to 2003. making it the single highest risk age group (see Table 2.2% and Study 2: 99.to 25-year old high-risk group was 99.6%.6% (Study 1A: 99. Based alone on the number of residents living in each state. the sample does not appear to be very repreresentative of the Malaysian population. Since.2%). young drivers are among the most likely to experience a motor vehicle crash.2).13 years (SD = 1. involved drivers aged 16 to 25 years.55). Table 5. it is helpful to examine the distribution by state in which research participants obtained their driving licenses. with a mean age of 20. Sabah. in Malaysia. 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. The proportion of the total sample for Studies 1 and 2 falling within the 16. Approximately one-third of all automobile crashes. 205 .
5 (8) 3.503.9 9.8 (6) 6.000 215.6 5.396.000 1.0 12.Table 5.4 provides similar comparisons for the state of origin of the sample of motorcyclists.2 (11) 12.887.0 4.200.500.2 3. a better assessment of sample representativeness by state would be to compare the proporation of participants with numbers of registered private vehicles and with the numbers of crashes in each state of origin. In both cases. in this case. the state of origin is defined as the state in which the participants’ driving licenses were issued.4 5. and there are different crash frequencies in each one.2 11.2 (5) 0.2 7.19 Per cent (rank) of participants sampled 17.004.000 2. Table 5.8 6.000 1.000 2. For that reason.674 1. Not all states have the same number of drivers. It is important to remember that the purpose of this research was to study the population of young.2 (13) 11.300. attempting to determine sample representativeness based on only state population would be flawed.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. Table 5.6 0.6 (10) 7.7 (2) 2.6 2.2 (1) 3.3 compares the state of origin of participants in Study 1 with the more relevant measures of vehicle registrations and crash occurrence.7 (14) But.260.3 (12) 11.818.9 (3) 2.500 1.576 2.286 1.1 (7) 8. high-risk drivers in Malaysia.6 6.807 733.100.880 3.387.000 Per cent of national population 26.5 (4) 4.0 8.188 1. 206 .150.9 (9) 7.000 3.
104 6.90 5.22 17.46 8.91 2.35 4.920 181.19 4.725 70.63 207 .785 393.4 4.19 7.50 29.093 5.496 Private Automobile Registrations (until 2003) 703.93 0.93 9.05 2.3: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 1) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.588.20 12.003 10.88 2.98 0.96 3.163 10.635 1.026 10.041 92.137 698.Table 5.28 3.88 3.600 135.617 10.13 6.36 8.251 324.70 3.34 3.84 11.34 11.85 1.561 1.230 266.97 12.064 9.92 25.24 2.75 4.27 14.606 24.76 3.45 9.774 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 12.768 6.37 3.70 12.029 273.170 13.467 25.198 156.496 187.89 3.144 12.212 39.55 7.68 7.428.735 165.19 3.24 0.490 525.43 2.16 2.
856 310.026 10.221 36.496 % Private Vehicle Registrations (until 2003) 933.64 1.029 273.606 24.992 776.768 6.88 3.82 9.656 821.63 13.4: State of Origin Compared with Crash Frequency and Vehicle Registrations (Study 2) Average Motor Vehicle Crash Frequency (2000-2003) 34.03 4.283 770.75 5.989 6.Table 5.02 10.02 7.20 15.92 25.76 3.003 10.305 276.59 1.112 347.28 3.66 11.49 0.59 12.617 10.722 255.144 12.10 9.15 5.46 14.88 2.4 4.33 4.958 % 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 12.38 4.27 14.064 9.63 11.22 3.93 7.37 3.93 9.288 444.170 13.74 208 .43 2.35 4.64 2.561 1.79 13.615.36 8.995 233.725 70.133 705.45 2.104 6.212 39.49 12.98 0.467 25.38 0.679 90.14 7.48 1.46 5.727 161.
Table 5. it can be argued that they were. were licensed as drivers in – the states with the most registered vehicles and the highest numbers of crashes. was representative of a high risk driver population.796** 1 Were the participants studied in this research representative of high-risk Malaysian drivers? In terms of their age and their regional origin. both for the studies of automobile drivers and for the study of motorcyclists.824** . participants came from – or. Even though data collection was carried out at a single university location. Table 5.814** 1 . Future studies of Malaysian driving behaviour will need to expand the range participant 209 . there are many other dimensions on which members of a sample can or cannot be representative of the population from which they have been drawn. it is possible to say that sampling.701** 1 Study 2: Motorcyclists Motorcycle crash frequency (by state) Vehicle registrations (by state) Participants’ state of origin 1 2 3 1 . At least on these dimensions. 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. This sample was comprised of individuals within the age group that has the most motor vehicle crashes.4. at least. Of course.3 and 5.5: Spearman rank correlations for States of Origin for Participants in Study 1 and Study 2 1 2 3 Study 1: Automobile Drivers 1 Automobile crash frequency (by state) 1 2 Vehicle registrations (by state) .903** .908** 1 3 Participants’ state of origin .5 shows the The Spearman rank correlation coefficient (rs) for the variables in Tables 5.
characteristics used as a basis for sample-to-population comparisons.g. accidents. e. demographic factors. 5. the easiest way to get data on several factors from the same subjects is by simply asking the subjects (p. Self-report data are prone to inaccuracy due to participant memory lapses. in studying driving behaviour. Rothengatter. attitudinal factors. social desirability response sets and fakeability (Aiken. 1998. Again. Additional studies should be carried out in order to validate findings within the broader population. The issue becomes even harder to resolve when dealing with cognitive variables that cannot be observed directly (Groeger & Rothengatter. 1979). violations and accidents should be linked together.6. unless the variation within the group is very small. 2001). the data has to be disaggregated. the use of questionnaire data provides the only practical possibility for gathering data at a low cost. None of these variables can be substituted by group means. We can also get rough data of exposure by age. as in other psychological research. 296). 1998. Katila and Laapotti (1997) have argued that. however. Exposure. Much important data is available in official statistics. accident distributions by age. Elander et al. Hatakka. 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.. Keskinen. is that this kind of data is usually aggregated … From aggregated data we cannot study the connections between accidents and age and exposure.2 Use of self-report methods The use of self-report methods in traffic psychology has been strongly criticised by af Wählberg (2002). The problem. (1993) have similarly argued that other methods for studying the 210 . However.
therefore. as in a study reported by Chalmé. 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. as well. Since generally motor vehicle crashes are fairly rare events. heart-rate acceleration and electrodermal activity) and to overt driving behaviours (e. errors of recall or contamination by post-event information (Belli & Loftus.g. Yet.. questionnaires were administered to measure all variables and. for instance. inadequate data are collected when the research is conducted over short periods of time. 13). Miles and Johnson (2003) have noted that. though. In future studies. perhaps drawing from drivers’ insurance records or. blood pressure. The assumption.. steering wheel reversals and speed change frequencies)” (p. self-reported crash and injury histories and self-reported driving patterns measured by the Behaviour in Traffic scale could be prone to inaccuracy. 5.3 Timeframe for Data Collection Elander et al. Particularly. 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 more information is lost through memory lapses. subjective accounts of crash or injury history should be validated against objective measures. Visser and Denis (2004). that the score that one receives on a measure of personality or behavioural orientation today was the same some time ago when a crash occurred is often tenuous.effects of personality on driving have drawbacks that cannot be overlooked.g. In the present research. in studies of driving behaviour.6. 211 . all data may be subject to the shortcomings of self-report methods. muscle tension. subjects would tend to under-report dangerous or illegal activities and that this tendency might usually be expected to be consistent across compared groups. combined interview and observational methods. the longer the time period for data collection. (1993) and af Wählberg (2003) have commented on the problem of data collection timeframes in studies of motor vehicle crashes. 1996).
5. 1997. as well. 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.2) that higher levels would result in less risky behaviour in traffic was supported. 1971). Second. Mercer. participants were asked to recall if a crash or resulting injury had occurred within the past twelve months. and the hypothesis (H2. a timeframe that is consistent with reasonably accurate recall (Haber & Haber.4 Measurement of Driving Frequency One of the self-report measures used in this research requires particular discussion. and that one participant’s perception of frequent automobile or motorcycle use may seem infrequent to another’s. individual standard. it has to be acknowledged that the measure is subjective. The problem with this approach is that it is every bit as subjective as the categorical judgements of 212 . The driving frequency measure was alaso used a co-variate in analyses of relationships between other distal variables and proximal variables.6. 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. there is a certain imprecision to the measure. Some authors have asked participants to estimate the distrance travelled during a particular period (Lajunen & Summala. 1999). This method has been used in previous studies by other authors (Pelz & Schuman. other measures of driving frequency present as many or more problems. Results were used as a measure of driving frequency for Studies 1 and 2. Unfortunately.In the present research. First. 2002). in that the measure tells us little about the circumstances under which participants drove other than their perceived use against some unstated. Traits included in the contextual mediated model as distal variables have been found to be relatively consistent and resistant to change over this interval.
it is argued here that such inaccuracy is also likely due to a cognitive phenomenon known as the availability heuristic. Specifically. their chances of winning a lottery (Griffiths. in other words. because they are highly emotional and so forth” (Plous. 1974). 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. but not always.frequency that were used in this research.. although this has not been firmly established. “Some events are more available than others not because they tend to occur frewquently or with high probability. 2003). experiences that are more common than others tend to be the ones that are most available. This is why individuals tend to irrationally overestimate the number of murders per year (Jaffe. 1993). p. 1973. There is some evidence that the availability heuristic exerts a greater impact when specific quantitative amounts or percentages have to be estimated. 213 . 2008). Wood & Boyd. on how available it is in our memories (Kahneman. and the likelihood of encountering a traffic jam (Wood. But. 121). this strategy leads us to overestimate their actual occurrence. Kahneman. but because they are inherently easier to think about. as opposed to reporting perceptions in categorical form (Tversky & Kahneman. eventful or recent. Some of the inaccuracy in the use of distance travelled as a driving frequency measure can be simply attributed to random or systematic errors in prediction (Elander et al. Levy (1997) argues that: Unfortuantely. 1993. because they have taken place recently. 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. 2002). 2004). Often. 1982). and that people are consistently poor at making these sorts of estimates accurately (Saad. 2003. 181). In much the same way. Slovic & Tversky. in which the perceived probability of an event corresponds to the ease with thich the event comes to mind or. frequency or distribution in the world (p.
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. which is the lack of information about the circumstances under which road use occurred (Odero et al. road conditions. Finally. emotionally-laden seasonal and holiday travel (Richardson & Downe. Sansone. in their studies of roadway aggression. and the availability of the resources necessary to operationalise them. (2003). Similarly. Morf and Panter (2004) argue that psycho-social research generally involves a balancing act between idealised research questions. it was felt that the collection of logbook data would have overextended time and financial resources at hand for the five 214 . 2001) .In the Malaysian environment. 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. it might be expected that participants’ driving estimates would be particularly prone to influence by the availability heuristic. Given that sample sizes for this research had to be large enough to apply structural equation modelling procedures. 2000). in the form of more vividly remembered trips to family reunions during festive seasons. poorer pavement and more surrounding vehicles (Åkerstedt & Kecklund. on one hand. where driving histories generally include lengthy. A logbook approach was considered during the design of the present research. during periods of low traffic volume. Of course. for example. many of the inaccuracies involved with the use of self-reported frequency data could have been solved by taking direct odometer readings.. Deffenbacher et al. but training participants in standardised record-keeping. the use of distance travelled doesn’t really solve the main problem in travel frequency measurement. asked participants to record the time of day. traffic volume and so on in logbooks as a means of controlling for differing driving circumstances. 1991). Driving 30 kilometres daily on quiet city thoroughfares.
that associated methodological disadvantages were fewer than those of the competing approaches. 1991). drawn from empirical studies and demonstrating inter-variable relationships (Chaloupka-Risser. 2004). the decision was made to use participants’ subjective.7 5. Rothengatter (2001) has argued that better measures of risk exposure are needed in traffic psychology.. In the present research. are testable and contain no contradictions. but that considerable effort has gone into the development of descriptive models. 5. While some authors have considered the terms “theory” and “model” as synonymous (e. 2005). In addition. creating new difficulties in their quantification (King. 2005).studies undertaken. Good theories are simple. have high information content. It was felt. Summala. during the study design process.g. 1997). the difference is that models are generally seen as “more modest affairs that aim to illustrate 215 . categorical perceptions of driving frequency. 1994). Models in Traffic Psychology It has been noted earlier that the emerging field of traffic psychology has yet to arrive at a unified. To summarise. 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. 2004). 2002. 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. Michon. 1985. but this was done with an awareness of the shortcomings of this measure.1 Implications and Areas for Further Study Theory vs.7. are of nomological character and can be applied irrespective of time and space (Langdridge. selfreported measure used here. over-arching theory (Rothengatter. 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. Ranney. collected logbook data would have been largely qualitative in nature. Further research is required.
if they aim to illuminate and encourage research on specific topics rather than the 216 . 294). Throughout the development of traffic psychology. check facts. Wilde (1982) has expressed concern that the study of traffic safety “is characterised by a sparsity of comprehensive and articulate conceptions” (p. Huguenin (1997) has similarly argued that theories are necessary to treat a subject scientifically. and while any data collection procedure must have some element of theory if it is to have real purpose. 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”. stating that. on the other hand.patterns of relationships. create links to other fields of knowledge or to explain or predict circumstances. the fact remains that we have enough guidance already from mainstream psychology. The answer to this question is possibly yes. The second question is whether we need traffic psychology models. Hauer (1987). 94). The answer is probably not. 32). 1997. at times. in particular to structure data. debate as to whether the greater need exists for more theory or for more data. The first question is whether we need traffic psychology theories. took the position that it is the scarcity of quantitative knowledge about safety that has brought about a “reign of ignorance” in studies of driving behaviour and motor vehicle safety (p. there has beeen an ongoing discussion and. Grayson (1997) agreed. if they are modest in ambition. or represent processes. Attempts to develop ‘traffic- specific’ theories have proved far less fruitful than has the importation of established theories from other areas of psychology. p. often in graphical form (Grayson.
while ignoring other factors which are much too important to be ignored (p. While many models offer insight into specific aspects of driver behaviour. 304). for instance. The debate often seems to revolve around the comparative merits of result-centred versus theory-centred methods in research. 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. Yet. 95-96).entire spectrum of traffic behaviour. 2. the contextual mediated model developed here may also go some distance toward breaking out of the narrow monist frame of reference eschewed by Evans. This dichotomy of perspectives is not unique to traffic studies and driving behaviour but seems to permeate all areas of applied psychology. In 217 . 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. it seems unlikely that general theories offering much more can be formulated. it has proved capable of linking psychological and demographic variables with a pattern of driving behaviour to illustrate influences on crash outcomes and injuries.3). those variables included a diverse set of human traits including locus of control. and if they are resultscentred (pp. aggression and hostile automatic thoughts. The problem arises from an intrinsic dilemma. In this case. In the present research. but the framework constructed here can easily accommodate a potentially endless range of both distal and proximal variables. who argued that. 1985) – that could hinder scientific progress. 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. hopelessness. This latter point was also stressed by Evans (1991). Greenwald and Pratkanis (1988).
sensation seeking (Sümer.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). openness. With several exceptions. and has relied heavily on post-hoc explanations. The contextual mediated framework. Future research should attempt to expand the contextual mediated approach beyond studies of crash histories. 2. anxiety. for instance. provides breadth of focus and a more holistic perspective than many other attempts at modelling driving behaviour. it may be even more fruitful to focus the model on the interaction of variables that contribute to safe.4). it has been conducted without the benefit of a process model of driving. 5. much current research. While the present research 218 . while still very much a model and not a theory. Rather than describing and predicting the interaction of factors involved in causing crashes. 2005) were included as distal variables. lead to the conclusion that we should abandon the differential accident paradigm and define alternative measures of safe driving. … has used performance-based measures to predict individual accident histories. competence or hierarchical level of information processing (see sect.3. depression. has focused primarily on accident-causing behaviour.other studies. agreeableness and neuroticism (Sümer et al. not on everyday driving. The general lack of success in identifying predictors of safe driving. the process through which drivers make adjustments based on their perceptions of risk. 2003).7. together with methodological difficulties associated with the use of accident measures. extraversion. Kerlinger (2000) and others. crash-free driving. conscientiousness. as defined by Grayson (1997). According to Ranney (1994).. psychoticism.
As a result. Following this reasoning. Such individuals would be more likely than internals to over-rely on a device to keep them oriented and alert. Within their proposed conceptual framework. some of the variables considered are conceptually tied to them. On the other hand. 219 . those who see themselves playing little or no part in the unfolding of events will act in a less cautious manner. should the device fail to perform the task for which it was designed. 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. they will become less involved with the driving task and be less likely to react.did not test any of those theories specifically. fail by not considering individual driver characteristics or the range of motivations that determine driving behaviour. or at least to react more slowly. along with trust in automation and sensation seeking. BA to in-vehicle safety measures may also be under the influence of drivers’ locus of control. Conversely. 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. will always maintain more direct involvement with the driving task than those scoring high on externality dimensions. They argued that locus of control. relying on it to competently perform the task it was designed for. 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. while intuitively appealing and providing some useful insight. those with an external locus of control may be more likely to give up control to an external device. no matter how reliable a safety device. is a concept that should be incorporated as an element in theories seeking to explain BA and its role in driving.
Training and Rehabilitation The results of the present research have important implications for the improvement of driving behaviour. 220 . could be screened out. locus of control was found to exert effects on Type A driving patterns and. changes in driver behaviour might be better targeted. once identified. Programmes with content focused on building internal attributions and a sense of personal responsibility would enhance training outcomes. Drivers may need to undergo cognitive restructuring about their beliefs about their own responsibility over road safety in order to increase levels of internality. Drivers with combinations of TABP and aggression..In the present research. 2005. Further research should focus on the role played by locus of control in influencing patterns of BA.3 Driver Selection. Typically. consistent with the earlier findings of Gidron et al. (2003) to moderate the effects of aggression on driving outcomes. 2006) or cognitive processing (Keskinen. 1996). whether that adaptation is the result of perceived risk (Wilde. Specifically. Christ et al. Luckner (1989) and others have successfully developed training curricula that encourage internality. al.7. 2002. which may mitigate the negative effects of roadway hostility. Gidron & Davidson. Coupled with simulated or actual driving experience and methods to modify patterns of hostile selftalk. scarce resources for screening drivers. task capability (Fuller. 1996). 1982). these approaches require special therapeutic training and large efforts on behalf of drivers. Findings from the present research can guide planners of remedial courses and counsellors to teach methods for increasing internal attributions. an area of increasing importance in fleet management (Barjonet & Tortosa. 2004). The treatment or rehabilitation of dangerous drivers has relied heavily on cognitive behaviour modification applications (Deffenbacher et. Summala. can be focused specifically on combinations of risk factors at both the distal and proximal levels. Further research is required to investigate implications for improving driving performance. external locus of control and hostile attributions. 5. though. 1997.
Slinn.1 Generating and classifying crash prevention interventions Ergonomists and safety scientists have. the technologies sophisticated and the interactions among humans.7.4. Cooke and Durso (2008) have noted that: Most industrial tasks require human operators to interact with various technologies. These have been euphemistically termed the “three E’s”. and the effective enforcement of regulatory legislation (Wheatley. At the same time.4 Preventive Measures: “The Three E’s” 5.2 Engineering Interventions Engineering applications in transportation have become increasingly cogniscent of human thinking processes. education. 1961. 1970) provides another system for classifying highway events for the purposes of research or accident prevention (see Figure 2. or legal intervention. the tasks we ask operators to perform today are highly cognitie. 1). Matthews and Guest (1999) have argued that traffic engineering has also undergone a transition in emphasis over the last decade.7. Specific measures aimed at reducing accident occurrence or injury can be classed according to whether they are predominantly based on engineering principles. From this has emerged the growing 221 . 1957). recognised that the cardinal bases of accident prevention fall into three categories: engineering.5.7. the Haddon Matrix (Haddon.4). educational programming (including public awareness and driver training). 5. World Health Organisation. Unlike 100 years ago. 1957. and machines are highly intricate (p.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. 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. for the last fifty years. teams of humans.
2005). 222 . 2003). in which in which the control of functions shifts between machines and human beings dynamically.6). These have been applied to in-car.6). Suda & Ono. The aim should be to assist drivers by making routine actions simpler. there is an adaptive and cooperative relationship between the driver and the vehicle in ensuring that lane deviation and roadway departure are controlled.application of computer and information technology to transportation infrastructure and vehicles. depending on environmental factors. 2001). reduce risks of extreme lane deviations by using a motor to increase steering torque in a manner that creates a “driving in a bathtub” sensation for the driver who nears a lane edge. Several intelligent in-car systems have been developed to assist lane manoeuvring and to control lateral deviation in the forward motion track. Other authors have cautioned against engineering so many devices and signals that driver attention becomes diverted from vehicle control tasks. (Bishop. so the systems are easily overridden by even the weakest drivers when needed (Kawazoe. In the case of LKA. At the same time. roadway and environmental settings (see Table 5. there may be limits to the number and level of sophistication of devices installed in motor vehicles. Murazami. as well as other in-vehicle technologies now being tested for future implementation in automobiles and other vehicles (see Table 5. 2001). Maggio & Jin. Stough. with the resulting transport systems generally referred to as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS. The findings of the present research that usurpation of right-of-way. Such systems are based on a shared control paradigm. Sadano. Holzmann (2008) argues that there is considerable potential for crash reduction in this sort of technology. is strongly associated with crash outcomes would support the importance of further development of LKA systems. Lane-keeping Assist Systems (LKA). Bishop (2005) has noted that there is still a lack of knowledge about the threshold levels at which to set in-vehicle modifications. operator workload and performance (Inagaki. not to overwhelm them with complicated or difficult override processes. or the adaptive automation concept. for instance. The amount of toque needed to adjust vehicle direction at highway speeds is quite small.
traffic 223 . in particular to pursue environmental. but also encourages at a more basic level the concept of traffic management as a policy prescription: Traffic management refers to the adaptation of the use of the existing road network. Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems (see Table 5. 2004. Recovery from lapses in attention has been faster in “restorative environments” enhanced with horticultural and aesthetic features (Heerwagen & Oriens. changes in traffic speed. initiatives aimed at improving environmental aesthetics may have a positive impact on roadway safety. 1998). 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. Ulrich. The present research also found that freeway urgency. 1993. such as Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE). This finding would lend support to the myriad of speed control devices now under development. A number of studies have reported that roadside vegetation and predominantly natural environments elicit lower levels of driver frustration and stress (Cackowsky & Nasar. Parsons. Richardson & Downe.6). 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. in the form of driving above the speed limit and driving consistently in the fast lane. Brown & Noy. Tassinary. 1997).with a resulting increase in crash risk (Noy. 2003. Black. Fountaine and Knotts. 2000). Herzog. Engineering solutions have also been suggested with respect to the design of roadways and the general driving environment. Hebl & Grossman-Alexander. was associated crash outcomes. Safety benefits from traffic management can result from changes in the patterns of trffic flow. 1999.
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. and substantial lifestyle changes aimed at achieving an environmentally sustainable future (Ogden. ostensibly satisfying wandering attentional needs and allowing vehicle operators to concentrate on tasks at hand. This view embraces a philosophy and a set of goals that go far beyone mere physical control and management of traffic. Probably. p. and now encompass the principle of “traffic calming” (Brindle. 1996. journey purpose or other human factors. This refers to driving while thinking about things unrelated to the driving task. Current discussions of speed management go even beyond traditional traffic management approaches. 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. 1992). Gregersen and Falkmer (2003). 224 . 1991). Lippold and Mayser (2003) have noted that new driver assistance systems offer some promise for safety improvements by providing additional information to drivers. but extends into city-wide suppression of traffic. questions of alternative urban structure. inexperienced drivers.efficiency (capacity) or access objectives (Ogden. however. and whether this information varies according to the situation. however. 309). engineering solutions have the least to offer in terms of behaviour in traffic that involves risky levels of destination activity orientation. Proctor. Dietze. Maakip (2003) has also added that there is little understanding of exactly what specific pieces of information drivers require or prefer to have. 1996.
6: Engineering Applications for Crash Prevention Finding Drivers who usurp the right-ofway and commit lane violations are more likely to experience crash outcomes.1.1 Vehicle Road Environment lane departure warning lane marker improvements – integrated traffic systems (LDWS) – have the using plastic. 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. the systems vision sensing technology to transmit information to combine lane and road drivers about traffic flow. infrastructure. 225 . generally comprehensive lateral control controlled from a central assistance (LCA) – a point. management centers (TMCs) integrated lane marker with closed-circuit television road departure warning applications – these combine (CCTV) camersas. Integrated with combination of radar and roadside sensors. variable speed warning systems advise lane conspicuity and message signs (VMS). 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.Table 5. and likelihood of. unsafe blind spot monitoring systems lane deviation. lane road conditions. “rumble strips” in expressways. blind spot sensing and lange change assist. keeping. – 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. traffic and systems (RDWS) – curve different materials to increase weather sesors. transitions for. created intelligent traffic of impending hazards. traffic drivers when their speed is definition. Hi H 1. etc. reversible corrections through a motorlanes. thermoplastic management systems – Many ability to detect lane and epoxy materials to metropolitan areas have departures and to alert drivers designate lane configurations. 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.
a particular high-risk part of the thoroughfare. 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”. are travelling. systems (CVHS) – wireless adaptive cruise control road network modifications. generally pilot”. communication systems (ACC) – acting as a Driving speed can be reduced embedded in the roadway “longitudinal control cothrough infrastructure infrastructure.1. ACC systems provide modifications. vehicle’s speed to comply travelling at speeds higher cooperative vehicle highway with the speed limit. t-junctions or or (at maximum) to limit the warning signs for vehicles pedestrian crossings. than the safety standard. the systems intersection modification. Integrated with vehicles in the lane ahead of roadside sensors.(continued) H 1. traffic lights) safe. 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 Drivers scoring high on a measure of freeway urgency are more likely to experience crash outcomes. including controlled from a central cruise control but also track street and link closures. adjusting transmit information to Intersection devices (yield speed as needed to maintaina drivers about the speed at and stop signs.. 226 .2 lane deviation feedback systems – systems calculate the number of lane changes as a function of speed and cue the driver with performance data. the host vehicle. Radar.1. H 1. deriver-selectable interwhich surrounding vehicles provide speed modification at vehicle gap. including those in adjoining lanes. to in-vehicle display terminals.and millimetre-wave (MMW)-based inter-vehicle communications – systems that send data about the proximity of approaching or following vehicles. point.
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.1. 227 . has an advantage over intersection redesign by saving space. measures that can reduce by driver interactions with congestion and other contrary messages – roadroad. H 1.(continued) Externally-frustrated drivers are more likely to experience crash outcomes.3 vertical displacement. signs with calming or vehicles. automated speed enforcement – the use of high-volume speed cameras to regulate the speed of motor vehicles on roadways. horizontal displacement – these design features cause the driver to change direction quite sharply and change the visual cues presented by the roadway. humorous content to evoke a contradictory affective response to frustration. The use of properly designed humps are effective in causing vehicles to reduce speed in their vicinity. Such devices include chicanes. at which the whole road space at an intersection is raised. traffic flow management training to better frustration and effect a moderation and other cope with frustration caused calming influence on drivers. pinchpoints and gateways or arches. “Speed tables”. coupled with stress vegetation to reduce traffic signals. environment and other frustrating stimuli.
Destination-activity orientation is associated with a higher risk of crash outcomes. safety messages. notice of future road construction and notice of public events. driver assistance systems – capable of providing information about destination conditions or journey progress. This information allows drivers to avoid or. H 1.(continued) electronic variable message signs (VMSs) – roadside signboards which change messages to provide updated information about traffic congestion. at least. 228 . to reduce wandering thoughts and focus attention on driving tasks at hand. prepare for stress-provoking conditions and external frustration.1. dedicated broadcast of safety messages – radio or broadband messages with reminder to focus attention on driving tasks at hand.4 in-vehicle biofeedback devices – systems that measure driver arousal and eye focal points and cue the driver when measures do not calibrate with attention to road conditions. weather-related road conditions. notification of construction ahead.
it is also important for them to devote some time to the affective and cognitive components of the driving task. it may be effective to conduct such awareness bulding within cultural centres. in addition to teaching the practical manoeuvres and driving techniques associated with managing a vehicle.4. and (c) driving test standards and requirements are inadequate” (p. Downing and Sager (1982) reported that children were significantly less likely to recive advice than in the United Kingdom from members of thir family. given ethnic differences observed with respect to drivers’ behaviour in traffic. The present research provides some useful additions to the knowledge base to be imparted to professional driving instructors in Malaysia. to some extent. Effective road safety education goes beyond driver training programmes. like community centres or places of worship. 2001).3 Education According to Jacobs and Baguley (2004). 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. teachers or the police. 229 . however. This is consistent with previous calls in Malaysia for safety awareness education.7. It suggests that. to inadequacies in driver training and testing. (b) there are no driving or instruction manuals. Training skills for anger management and frustration tolerance. They concluded that there is clarealy a need to improve road safety education.5. the probems of poor driver behaviour and knowledge in developing and emerging countries “are likely to be due. Professional driving instruction tends to be inadequate because (a) driving instructors are not properly tested or monitored. imparting a sense of personal responsibility consistent with a higher internal locus of control and reducing freeway urgency through effective time management skills and greater risk awareness would be important cognitive components to the training syllabus. The present research suggests that. and must include broader awareness about the dangers of roads and traffic. 73).
or an internal locus of control. (2) exhortatory and educational measures to encourage the development of appropriate skills and attitudes. or the tendency to attribute one’s own attitudes and behaviour to others. 1978. p. N6). Second. The Belief in a Just World bias is the tendency “to belive that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve” (Lerner and Miller. 2007. one practical and the other touching on the development of theory.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. however.7. First. evoke the least expectation and are least often evaluated in terms of their effect on accidents” (p. legal measures change least often. was studied in a 230 . and (3) legal measures providing rules governing the interaction of pedestrians and traffic. Yergil (2005) has discussed a number of cognitive biases that tend to enhance a false sense of safety among drivers. from the findings of the present research. that “Of these three approaches.4. and driving within safe legal limits could be included within future public information campaigns. and penalties for infringement to ensure that the rules are obeyed. p. The results of the present research would suggest that messages about the link between personal responsibility for one’s action. This twinning of psychological and legal perspectives derives two implications. They also stated. 265). Siegrist and Roskova (2001) have called for an integration of social science views arising from traffic psychology with legislation and enforcement pertaining to traffic. 1030). road safety campaigns and media coverage” (Cheah. The bias of false consensus.5. such as visibility of enforcement. Jacobs and Baguley (2004) have stressed that changes in road laws and police operations need to be well advertised in order to be effective. Success of the yearly Ops Sitak safety campaign by the Royal Malaysian Police and other regulatory bodies has been attributed to several “cumulative factors.
Reason & Baxter. opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour (subjective norms) and perceived behaviour control (PCB). Another possible way to minimise the same contradiction is to diminish the significance of the violation by labelling it as an action that. They showed that the frequency of violations was related to the evaluated percentage of other drivers who commit the same violations. 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 . 498).sample of drivers by Manstead. Stradling. on the other. 2001) provides an interesting theoretical framework for considering the influences of these cognitions and their interplay with regulatory controls. Parker. Azjen & Fishbein. Both biases seem rooted in an external locus of control. 1992). Yergil (2005) notes that: In order to maintain the self-concept of a law-abiding citizen. 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. on one hand attributing outcomes to a fatalistic notion of Just World and. after all.” One possible way to minimize this contradiction and the resulting dissonance is to attribute the same behaviour regarding violating the law to other drivers (the bias of the false consensus). to consensual beliefs of powerful others. 2001. 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). 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. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour (TPB. Ajzen. By doing so.
drivers’ decisions to adhere. 232 . it may be possible to come closer to the integration of legal and psychological perspectives advocated by Siegrist and Roskova (2001). an orientation toward an external locus of control may influence PCB factors underlying the decision to comply with legal requirements or not. By examining drivers’ response to traffic laws in the context of the theory of planned behaviour. Similarly. to traffic regulations. or not adhere.
locus of control.. In the present research.g. 2002. Iverson & Rundmo.CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION The present research was an attempt to investigate interaction effects of experiential.. with demographic and personality variables posited as distal and patterns of behaviour in traffic consistent with the Type A behaviour pattern. Sümer. as expected. contribute to the occurrence of crashes and injuries. 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. such human factors are important contributors to crash outcomes. was used to frame the relationship between these human factors. 233 . Results have indicated that. hopelessness. Studies using structural equation modelling to interpret complex inter-variable relationships have become increasingly prevalent within the traffic psychology literature (e. demographic and psychological characteristics of drivers on the occurrence of self-reported motor vehicle crashes and crash-related injuries. A contextual mediated model. aggression and tendency to entertain hostile automatic thoughts all act upon driving behaviour patterns which. it was concluded that driver experience. 2005. as proximal to the crash outcomes. ethnicity. Sümer et al. gender. when risky. structural equation modelling (SEM) was found to be a valuable technique for articulating interactive relationships in a holistic manner. Wállen Warner & Åberg. 2006) and it is anticipated that there will be many more. In doing so. derived from the earlier work of Sümer (2003). 2003. age.
it is argued here. 1983) and was earlier found to moderate the effects of aggression on driving behaviour (Gidron et al. the locus of control variable has been long recognised as a moderator variable in a range of psychological processes involving stress (Lefcourt. However. as well as statistical grounds. 1974). 1995. 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. 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. 1982). like Brown and Noy (2004). the selection of one SEM over competing models has been generally based on which has the better goodness-of-fit. This is Of the variables studied. 1986.In the current literature. it has been argued here that it may be an important factor in behavioural adaptation processes underlying risk homeostasis (Wilde. task capability (Fuller. Montag & Comrey. traffic psychologists and other researchers are advised to make the choice based on theoretical and practical. that when faced with competing models in safety studies.g. 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. 2000) and hierarchical motivation theories (Näätänen and Summala.. one conclusion is that the locus of control construct plays an important role in safety behaviour. 1987). In the present research. and accident risk (e. although it is widely acknowledged that this is not a hard and fast rule. 1973).. Some inter-ethnic differences in 234 . Harrell. The present research replicated earlier findings about the important influences of internal and external locus of control over behaviour leading to safety problems and. Further. the best fit usually implies the best model. or external locus of control. 2003). It is further concluded that aggression also plays a significant role in behaviour leading to crash outcomes. In most cases. Some previous studies have shown a link between ‘fatalism’. consistent with the position taken by Byrne (2001) and other authors. Hoyt.
in combination.aggression were observed. It is argued that this is a In interpreting these effects.. In examining inter-relationships among and between these variables. it became apparent that motor vehicle crashes are indeed multi-factorial phenomena and that prior assumptions of causality should always be subject to review. 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. and a psychologist who studies cognition and driving while turning away from laws and government. However. 1998. as well. Groeger & Rothengatter. Each system has its own experts whose lenses are focused almost exclusively on their own subject matter. For example. 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. Several authors (e. 2005. Rothengatter.g. a multi-disciplinary approach was used. an economist who researches economic factors of transportation without much concern for geography. One of the benefits of using structural equation modelling in such research is that it allows for a holistic. all are professionals who know their area of expertise has collegially or self-imposed limitations. Huguenin. bird’s eye view of the factors contributing a given outcome. road engineering and ergonomics. they 235 . promising approach to future studies of crasch occurrence. including psychology (especially cognitive and information processing). a civil engineer who uses laboratories to measure asphalt wearing under different conditions. As Rothe (2002) has pointed out: Traffic-safety systems are composed of complex behaviours that imply complex causes and entangled factors. cultural anthropology.
Indeed. Continued sharing between professional associations and between design. 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. a multi-disciplinary approach leads not only to the greater level of understanding described by Rothe (2002). In the present research.form a complex traffic-safety reality in which systems form a web of interdependent fields (p. 313). Additional studies should aim toward a conceptual common ground and further examination of models and theories from which broader understanding can be derived. educational and enforcement spheres. 236 . significant impacts can be made in reducing motor vehicle crashes. findings with regard to four components of behaviour in traffic gave rise to a number of interventions in the engineering. but it also opens the door for a wider range of preventive measures. injuries and death. regulatory and social science specialists should be encouraged. Through a multi-disciplinary approach. 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.
Journal of Safety Research. Mohd Nasir. R.E.  Ahmad Hariza. 5. 38(5). S.T. L. (1993).A.R. 473-486. and Law. 12. attitudes and social norms of Swedish male drivers. M. 1867-1874. (2002). Third edition. Subramaniam.  Abdul Kareem. M. Petaling Jaya. H. On the validity of self-reported traffic accident data. Accident Analysis and Prevention.. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Mohd Zulkifli. (2003). L. Crash data analysis: collective vs. Some methodological deficiencies in studies on traffic accident predictors. A. (2005). MY: Pearson.H. Psychological Testing and Assessment. and Kulanthayan. 581-587. 31-39.  Abdullah. R.  Åberg. (2003).. K. 237 . T. (1999). The effectiveness of motorcycle safety campaigns on motorcyclists. 35. Musa.  af Wählberg. Car occupants accidents and injuries among adolescents in a state in Malaysia. and Anurag. and Pederson. P. P. (Research Report 1/99) Kuala Lumpur: Malaysia Road Safety Council.E.. E140 Proceedings of the Safety on Roads International Conference (SORIC). (1979).  af Wählberg. Drinking and driving: intention. N. A. H. Understanding Multicultural Malaysia: Delights. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies.  Adolphs. 10(2). 169-177.S. (2002). individual crash level approach.. Puzzles & Irritations. Neural systems for recognizing emotion.H. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Bahrain. A. (2007).  Abdul Rahman. 289-296.  Aiken. (2003). A. Radin Umar.B. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences. 25.. Review of global menace of road accidents with special reference to Malaysia – a social perspective.REFERENCES  Abdel-Aty.
Tubré.. (2004).  Ajzen. I. M. and Kecklund (2001).. Social.. E. 187-195. and Kerrich.E. Annual Review of Psychology. A. S. 623-633. 291-307. Beliefs about aggression among male and female prisoners. I. J. (Eds.  Archer. Learning. (Eds.G. 50(2). Convergence of self-report and archival crash involvement data: a two-year longitudinal followup.  Armstrong. S.  Åkerstedt. Women’s Studies International Forum.J. Aggressive Behavior. I. and Hewston. A. Ajzen. I. The theory of planned behaviour. Ethnic differences and married women’s employment in Malaysia: do government policies matter? Journal of Socio-Economics. J. 33(3). T.  Amin. T. and Fishbein.) Action-Control: From Cognition to Behavior. (2005).  Armitage. W. 340-342. 22(3). and Christian. and Tubré. 303-313. (1997). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Personality.D. Current Psychology: Developmental. Human Factors. M. 47. M. J. 179-211. (1952). (1987). Nature and operation of attitudes.  Ajzen.H. Women’s friendships under urbanization: A Malaysian study. B. Journal of Sleep Research. J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 238 . Attitudes and the attitude behavior relation: reasoned and automatic processes.C.A. (1991). Edwards. (2001). Accident statistics and the concept of accident proneness. and Beckmann. 10.  Arthur. 23. Bell. (1985). C. London: John Wiley & Sons. 7. and Haigh. W. 27-58.  Ajzen.J. 52. 10(6). Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag. Day.) European Review of Social Psychology. (2001). gender and early morning accidents. In Stroebe. Biometrics.105-110. (2003). In Kuhl. A.  Arbous. J. Age. 404-415. From attitudes to behaviour: basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour.T.
T. Human Performance. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Austin.M.S. F. J.C. 1173-1182. GJ. Prediction of vehicular accident involvement: a meta-analysis. In Trimpop. 34. Wilde.A.  Ballesteros. (2001). In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. and Kenny..  Bakri Musa. 2(4).  Barjonet. 21-30).) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. W. Arthur. P. Improved safety through improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk compensation in relation to antilock braking systems. (2002).  Aschenbrenner.  Aylott. (2002). P.L. F. Transport psychology and transport in Europe: a general overview. When hope becomes hopelessness. Groningen.31-42. P-E. Barrett. 51(6). Retrieved April 4.D. R.-E. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual. Asian Development Bank – Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional road safety program (accident costing report AC5: Malaysia). P.-E. An alternative accident prediction model for highway-rail interfaces. 4(2).. and Carbonell Vaya E. G. (Eds. (1986). Characteristics of traffic crashes in Maryland (1996-1998): differences among the youngest drivers.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. NL: Styx. D. 14-29).  Baron. and Tortosa. (Ed. 89-105. European Journal of Oncology Nursing.M.A. 2007 from http://www. B. and Carson. R. 34. (1997). R.M. K. strategic and statistical considerations.bakrimusa. Continuing carnage on our carriageways. (1994). (1991). Manila: Philippines.. 279-284. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R. S.com/archives/continuing-carnage-on-our-carriageways.) Challenges to Accident Preventions: The Issue of Risk Compensation Behaviour. October 18). In Barjonet. Transport psychology in Europe: a historical approach.F. and Dischinger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and Biehl. M. 239 .  Asian Development Bank (2005). (2005. and Tortosa.  Barjonet. Boston: Kluwer. (Eds. 231-234. and Alexander.V. (1998).
Weissman. K.T. 1146-1149. A. The pliability of autobiographical memory: Misinformation and the false memory problem. and Simons-Morton (2002). Cognitive therapy. and Mills. In (Flinders. hopelessness and fatigue in patients and family members in palliative care. Hartos. A. H. San Antonio TX: Psychological Corporation. 234(11). and Berg.A.T. J.G.H. A. Beck.K. 149-178). 1(1).  Beck. 88. New York: Perennial Harper Collins.  Bentler. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 588-606. Journal of the American Medical Association. and Weissman. A. 42  Becker. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures..  Beck.  Benzein.  Belli. (1993). 240 . A. D.) The Evolution of Psychotherapy (pp. Health Education and Behavior. D. and Trexler. A. and Steer.J. R. A. E.E.  Beck. 218-229). New York: Teachers College Press. D.. (1996). In Rubin.S. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy.M.T. (2005). (1999). (1980).  Beck. Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. (Ed. New York: Meridian. Psychological Bulletin.G. (pp.. M. 29(1). D.) Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory (pp. The measurement of pessimism: the Hopelessness scale.T. Cognitive models of depression. E. P.F. A. (1993). Manual for Beck Hopelessness Scale. The level of and relation between hope. L. Kovacs.T. Lester. (1974). and Loftus. R.  Beck.C. (1975).  Beck. Theory: the necessary evil. J. 19. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly. Palliative Medicine.C. In Zeig. A. (1987a). New York: Cambridge University Press.T.T. 5-37. Hostility and Violence. (1976). A. 157-179). (Eds.  Beck. (Ed.. New York: Brunner/Mazel.F. and Bonnett. 234-240. (1987b).) Theory and Concepts in Qualitative Research: Perspectives from the Field. Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger.. G. 73-84.
(1984). M.  Bridger.J. Assessment of conceptual tempo in the Type A (coronary prone) behavior pattern. R. (1981). (1995). Psychological Bulletin.A. Applied Psychology: An International Review. and Geller. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry.  Blacker. R.  Bettencourt. 313-322.. Talley. (2001).E. 751-777. R. K. (2006. 38(3). T.B. Managing the high costs of road deaths. Anxiety. (1994). 472-481  Binzer. Ben-Zur. 391-399. Graziano. New York: McGraw Hill. and Valentine.A. Malaysian National News Agency. and Shimmin. New York: Routledge. Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: a meta-analytic review. Williams. McKee. Psychology and road safety.  Blasco. 44-51.. Applied Ergonomics. Retrieved March 30. 132(5).S.. Revolutions and shifting paradigms in human factors & ergonomics. (2006). 34(1). S. (2006) Risky driving and lifestyles in adolescence. 39-55. T.  Bernama. 2007 from http://www. and Bonino.. S. Applying Psychology in Organizations. Journal of Personality Assessment. Benjamin.D. Introduction to Ergonomics. 241 . D.my/bernama/v3/printable. E. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.S. M. J. H. 43. Hopelessness and locus of control in patients with motor conversion disorder. A. B. and Haney.  Blumenthal. 15(1). A.  Boyce.com.php?id=185148. Accident analysis and Prevention. 37. (2006). Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and curiosity. J.bernama. F.C.  Bina. 37-40. 95-104. March 12). A technology to measure multiple driving behaviors without self-report or participant reactivity. 53. F. Stress and Coping. 45(1). (2002)..  Boff.
and Wilde.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Political Geography. (1948). I.  Burns. In Rothengatter. 445-455. and Huguenin. 219-241..J. and Carbonell Vaya.D. 21. D.E.  Bunnell. G. Amsterdam: Pergamon. 29-38  Brodsky. N.D. International Journal of Educational Development.S. R. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System as a tool for investigating racial and ethnic determinants of motor vehicle crash fatalities.D.W. (2002). Making ethnic citizens: the politics and practice of education in Malaysia. Risk taking in male taxi drivers: relationships among personality. Briggs. Accident Analysis and Prevention. R.S.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.M. 9-19).. Exposure and experience are a confounded nuisance in research on driver behaviour. (2000). (Eds. T. 242 . I.  Browne. Accident Analysis and Prevention. I. T. The effects of music tempo on simulated driving performance and vehicular control. (1982). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. (2004). C.  Brown.K. 641-649. (2007). 24. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology. (1995). 267-278..  Brown. Multivariate Behavioral Research.C. W. E. G. Amsterdam: Elsevier. M. R. and Ghiselli. 105-124.G. R. (1989). (1992). Goldzweig. 18(2).E.  Brindle. 14. 24(1). Accident proneness among street car motormen and motor coach operators. How traffic and transport systems can benefit from psychology (pp. C. Local street management in Australia: is it ‘traffic calming’.C. 27(3). (Eds.P. 32(1). (1997).C. (2005). Levine. P. T. (Re) positioning Malaysia: high-tech networks and the multicultural rescripting of national identity.. and Warren.  Brown. Ergonomics. and Cudeck. 318-330. R.  Brown. observational data and driver records. I. Personality and Individual Differences. Schlundt. E.  Brown. Behavioural adaptation to in-vehicle safety measures: past ideas and future directions. 345-352. 4(4). 20-23. W. Haliburton. 37(4). and Noy. In Rothengatter.W.
(2001). and Durkee. Beverly Hislls CA: Sage. M. L. Automatic attention to emotional stimuli: neural correlates. 35(6). (Eds..A. and Nasar. (2003). 47(15). M. and Cortes.  Carmines. M. E. Environment and Behaviour. 21. 736-751.. PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic Conccepts.  Carretie. Gonzalez. The relationship between organizational and individual variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometers. The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. 343-349. W. J.W. (1998). Human Brain Mapping.M.A. (1999).D. A. (2002). F. G.G. and Warren.F. In Bohrnstedt. (1974). Buss.  Carsten. 63-65. 31. Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. 65-115). (2004). L. In Fuller. Internal versus external control in India and Canada..  Byrne. T.. An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility.  Byrd. 45-50. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2004). O. International Journal of Psychology. (Eds). Oxford: Elsevier Science.H.. (2000). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 15981613. E. D. E. J. B. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and McIver. and Borgatta.  Buss. R.  Carment. T.L. J. (1981). Cohn. A. Seatbelt use and belief in destiny among Hispanic and non-Hispanic drivers. and Tapia.  Cackowski. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Conccepts. Manual for Aggression Questionnaire. Ergonomics. Applications and Programming. 22.L. Parada.W. and Kline.J. A. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Multiple perspectives. 243 . Martin-Loeches. Mercado. 9.  Caird. Hinojosa.. Human Factors for Highway Engineers. J.K.H.  Byrne.) Social Measurement: Current Issues (pp. J. B. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL.P.. (1957). Applications and Programming. 290-299. J. M. & Santos.
Y. and Lim.org/workshops/05CampoGrande  Chan. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Brazil. 21(4). what can we know – traffic psychological analysis of Driver Behaviour. R. and Huguenin. Campo Grande. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. (1996). Taiwan. and Denis.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.M. (2007. (2000).P.  Chaloupka-Risser (2005). (1985). R.D. H.ghipr. S. and Nash.  Cheah. The Star. Kuala Lumpur. Personality and Individual Difference. Personality across the ethnic divide in Singapore: are “Chinese traits” uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences. Visser.  Cheung. R. March 20-22.-H. 557-562.F.  Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm Insurance (2007). and Yeh. (Eds. Doing data analysis with SPSS 10.com/statefarm/chop/youngdriversurvey/PDF/NYD_Survey_FIN. 10(2).-H. R. P.  Che Ali bin Che Hitam (2001. T. 2007 from http:www. Cheung. Paper presented at the Traffic Engineering and Management in Malaysia workshop. Retrieved March 31. N6. (2006). Matto Grosso do Sul. Driving: through the eyes of teens.-L. Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury. Motorists more careful because of Ops Sitak. J.. Carver..W. F. November). D. Malaysia. Dictionary of Psychology. Sunway Campus. S. Traffic management and road safety along federal roads in Malaysia. Motorcyclist accident involvement by age. Howard. 467-477. 61-71). 41. 2008 from http://www. T. What are we allowed to ask. Self-consciousness in Chinese college students in Hong Kong.  Chaplin.H. Retrieved October 15. W. (2004). gender and risky behaviors in Taipei.  Chalmé. 109-122. In Rothengatter. (2007).  Chang.ictct.G. November 12). New York: Dell.0. Amsterdam: Elsevier.. J. Cognitive effects of environmental knowledge on urban route planning strategies. M.pdf 244 . Monash University.
Koumaki.L. Time vs. S. and Lee-Gosselin.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. June). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 255-274). M. 974-981. (2000). R. Make Roads Safe: A New Priority for Sustainable Development. Tzamalouka. V.  Chmiel.D. M. 679-684. B.. Bartle. D. and Ward. and Chan.  Christie. Kasniyah.D. Bradshaw. and Stiles. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Huguenin. Patient-related barriers to cancer pain management in a palliative care setting in Hong Kong. 196-203.. 38(6).makeroadssafe. Personality traits and the development of depression.pdf  Conrad. Safety at work. hopelessness and suicide ideation. Bakou. H.  Chliaoutaks. 1283-1289. T.. C. C. P.  Chipman. Accident Analysis & Prevention.org/documents/make_roads_safe_low_res.. P. A.’ Injury Prevention. Chioqueta. 125-129.  Commission for Global Road Safety (2006..E.K. T. E.. )2007). and Bukasa.. In Chmiel.G. M. W. How exposure information can enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘death leagues. Journal of Safety Research. Y. Personality and Individual Differences.) An Introduction to Work and Organizational Psychology: A European Perspective (pp. C. Driver selection and improvement in Austria. (2007). In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. N. Aggressive behavior while driving as predictor of self-reported car crashes. injuries and cultural definitions: motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. distance as measures of exposure in driving surveys. and Darviri. 2007 from http://www.. P.  Chung. (2005).P. 193-200. (1996).  Clarke. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Lamsudin. Panosch. (1992). Cancer Nursing.S.. 22(3).. (2002). J. S. 377-390). French. 431-443. 28(2). 245 . Towner. and Truman. 24(2). and Costello.T. Smiley... Demakakos. Helmets. (2004). P. 13(2). (Eds. N. (Ed.C.  Christ. (1999). 39. Ward. E. The role fo motorcyclist and other driver behaviour in two types of serious accident in the UK.M. Retrieved December 7. A. R. N. 33. N. C. MacGregor.. R. G. Cairns...
 Crittendon. Stories of Modern Technology Failures and Cognitive Engineering Successes. and Patel. Cognitive/neuropsychological functioning and compensation related to car driving performance in older adults.S. Applied Cognitive Psychology. K.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 21-50.F. In Fuller. R. R. N48  de Raedt. R. and McRae. (1962).my/permalink. N.  Davies. and Ponjaert-Kristofferson (2004). 64. 98-117. P. (1961). H. The Star. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed. October 18). and van Koppen. (2002). Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Santos. D. Cooke. Retrieved April 5. and Durso. Crashing memories and the problem of ‘source monitoring’. P. Amsterdam: Elsevier. W. 10.R. American Psychologist. R.  Cowardly Malaysian drivers. D.M. Mental workload.asp?id-7003. Asian self-effacement or feminine modesty? Gender and Society. T.W. (Eds. Journal of Personality Assessment. G. Engineering psychology and the highway transportation system.. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 5(1).D. W.  de Waard. [Letter to the Editor] The Star Online. Boca Raton Fl: CRC / Taylor & Francis.A. (2006. 161-175).  Davin Arul (2005. In Rothengatter. J. Editorial: Get out of my @%^$! way: there are a few things we should remember about this whole rudeness-on-the-road thing. P.J. or variable accident tendency? Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. Accident proneness. (1995). 152-171.L. 2007 from http://blog. 95-104. position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. 45-62. 10.  Crombag. F. February 8).  Cozan.  Costa.com.T.  Cresswell. 263. 246 . and Froggatt. and Huguenin. 20(5).J. (1996).A. 16(5). (1991).thestar. Wagenaar. p.M. Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. L. (2005).
R.  Deffenbacher.R. 41. 34.S. AZ: Lawyers & Judges.  Deffenbacher. On the measurement of driver mental workload. Oetting. In Rothengatter.A. D. and Meyer. 47.E. Control motivation and young drivers’ decision making. 27(4). (2002a). R. (1997).. R. 111-142). (2003). 333-356. E. 28. E. J. Cognitive Therapy and Research. J.L.D.R. R. 26(1). E. de Waard. Huff.E.S. Characteristics of two groups of angry drivers.  Dien. K. T. 209-233). Journal of Counseling Psychology. Behaviour Research and Therapy. P. Petrilli. Amsterdam: Pergamon. T.  Deffenbacher. (2005). 161-171). Oetting. N. 1-20. (1996). Journal of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. and Olson. T. 247 . S. (1998). and Oetting. 373-393. (2004). 14(12). 729-730. and Ameratunga. S. In Dewar. Ergonomics.  Deffenbacher.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp. In Dewar.  Delhomme. M. 5-17. T.E. Journal of Counseling Psychology.L. Individual differences.S.. Lynch.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.. J.T. Filetti. Richards.L.W. and Morris. (2003). E.R. Differential lateralization of trait anxiety and trait fearfulness: evoked potential correlates.L.D.N. and Swaim. Lynch. R. 50(2). J.C. P. E..F.. R. Characteristics and treatment of high anger drivers. (2000). R..R.  Devashayam.. AZ: Lawyers & Judges. and Brookhuis. Tucson.. The Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire: a measure of angry cognitions when driving. Lynch. P.S. R.  Dewar. Road traffic injuries in Sri Lanka: a call to action. 383-402. R.L. Age differences – drivers old and young. and Olson. E. (Eds. E. L. R. Power and pleasure around the stove: the construction of gendered identity in middle-class south Indian Hindu households in urban Malaysia. (2002b). (Eds.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. and Carbonell Vaya. (1999).L. Personality and Individual Differences. The expression of anger and its consequences. Lynch. C.L.B.  Dewar.  Dharmaratne. 575-590. and Salvatore.. Oetting. Women’s Studies International Forum. 123132. Tucson. (Eds. J.
L. L. R.A. M.G. Ball.  Dodge.) Proceedings of Agriculture Ergonomics Development Conference (pp. (1987). Powers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. A. M. (Eds. T. Kuala Lumpur MY: IEA Press. 525-535. 31. E. C. The safety potential of the new driver assistance system (CSA). M. Health Education Research. Brown.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. socio-demographic characteristics and accidents.. Lim. and Che Doi. 197208. D.L.. Jenkins. R. T. (2003). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Dukes.G. H. Effects of aggressive driving and river characteristics on road rage. J. In Rothengatter.A. J. A.Y. Amsterdam: Pergamon.D.. Kedah. locus of control and worker safety in three Malaysian plantations: moving toward a contextual-mediate research model. 223-231). 14(2). Traffic safety and the new research paradigm in human sciences. Clayton. Development and evaluation of a measure of dangerous aggressive.  Dobson. In Khalid. November). and Mayser.. (2007. S.. S.  Downe. Aggression and ethnicity in Malaysia: a preliminary investigation.  Dixey. Paper presented at the First International Conference-Seminar on Culture. negative emotional and risky driving.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. C. (Eds. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. and McFadden. (2004. Ebersbach.L.. Lippold. 248 .T..M. Science & Technology. (Ed. and Rodgers. In Dorn. M. A... C.  Dula. 263282.. Asian Institute of Medicine. 33. (1999). N. T. 53.a. (1997).R.  Draskóczy. (1999). 1146-1158. Women drivers’ behaviour. (2001). Knowledge transfer. R. Malaysia. J. and Loke.L. Nigeria. 323-331. accident causation and prevention: issues for health promotion from an exploratory study in a Yoruba town. Miller.S. Sungai Petani.E. K. W. Social Science Journal 38.P. ‘Fatalism’. 85-92). Bahar. and Carbonell Vaya. S. M. and Coie. 278-285). (2003). and Ballard. December).E. Dietze. Social information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s playgroups. Mohd Yusuff..  Downe.
J. A. 74. 50(13). Journal of Transport Geography. New York: Academic. Causal ordering of stress. H. A.. Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination of methods and findings. Sudden and rapid death during psychological stress.D. G. (2005). satisfaction and commitment. Czech Republic.. (1993).. Using epidemiological data to address psychological questions about pedestrian behavior. Psychiatric risk factors for motor vehicle fatalities in young men.org/workshops/02-Brno/Elvik. New York: Lyle Stuart Press. A. and French D. A.. 209-306).A. R. G.  Ellis. 838-844. Lalovic. G. Kim.  Elvik. Annals of Internal Medicine. and Turecki.R. J..  Engel. C. In Underwood. Leadership and Organizational Development. 2007 from www. Chawky.  Edwards. Weather-related road accidents in England and Wales: a spatial analysis. (2001). (1962). R. 69. Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy. West. R. 249 . (2005). 17-26).B. (1984).  Elander. (Ed.  Elangovan.ictct. 201-22. and intention to quit: a structural equations analysis. Psychological Bulletin. (2002). J. Annals of Internal Medicine. C. (1971). Dumais. N. 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. A life setting conducive to illness: the giving up complex. March 20-22.. Boyer. 22(4).L.L.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. G. Lesage. 113. 293-300. Retrieved December 25. Ménard-Buteau. G. Cross cultural research with the locus of control construct.pdf  Engel. 771-782. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. A. (1996). 159165.  Dunbar. 279-294. In Lefcourt.M. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Dyal. (1968). 4(3)... Brno.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.(Ed. Volume 3: Extensions and Limitations (pp..
S. A study of accident proneness among motor drivers.  Farran. (1976). Patterson. L. 38). Hadley.M. and Alpert. (2000). L. Evans.M. 81-94. Klesges. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Traffic Safety and the Driver. 55).A. (1984). E.  Ey.. Barnard. L. p. 86(6). (1995). L.000 and RM5.. M.  Farmer.  Ferguson. December 10). E..G.J. W. 250 . (1991). S. E. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. and Chambers.  Farmer. Worse than a war zone: our roads claim 6. 23(5). E. 84). (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic accident data.  Evans. (1986). B. and Chambers. E. 784-786. Racial differences in adolescents’ perceived vulnerability to disease and injury. London: Medical Research Council. The Star. 421-435. K. Comment: the dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. 6(1).M. J.  Evans. 16. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. American Journal of Public Health. A psychological study of individual differences in accident rates. Journal of Behavioural Medicine. Driver fatalities versus car mass using a new exposure approach. and Popovich.G. 19-36. N22. (1996).  Farik Zolkepli (2007. L.A. E. C.. (1929). New York: McGraw Hill. and Chambers. London: Medical Research Council. Risk Analysis.6bil losses yearly.. (1939).G.  Evans. (Industrial Fatigue Research Board Report No. (1926).  Farmer. Hope and Hopelessness: Critical Clinical Constructs. G. Herth. A study of personal qualities in accident proneness and deficiency. London: Medical Research Council. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.S.
(1990). Accident Analysis and Prevention.  Friedman.. Belief. and Seiden. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. (2000). E.  Frazier. 461-472.. Linderholm. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. R. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Cross Cultural Management. (2007). (2005).P. 251 . 412-426.H. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A. M. Journal of Counseling Psychology. R. (1986). Malays and Indians compared. Ferguson. 66.18(4). consequences and considerations. H. Human factors and driving. B.  Finn. The task-capability interface model of the driving process. 137-145.W. Intention and Behavior. The intention to commit driving violations – a qualitative study. J. 47-55. Journal of American College Health. 115-134. (2004). 289-298. (2005). and Bragg. P.. Journal of Safety Research 38.  Fuller.R. R. I. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. K. and Järmark. 77-97). and Santos. 37. M.W.  Firestone.  Forward. Progress in teenage crash risk during the last decade. 12(4). (2002). (1998. P. R. Tix. (1974). and Ajzen. 51(1). Women and traffic accidents. August). and Rosenman. S. Teoh. Towards a general theory of driver behaviour.T. S. Recherche Transports Sécurité. New York: Knopf. and Richardson. and McCartt. Attitude. R. San Francisco. (2006). R. In Fuller. Cultural values in Malaysia: Chinese.  Fuller. A. 9. A. Accident analysis and Prevention. causes.  Fontaine. Suicide and the continuum of self-destructive behavior. R. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology.E. I. R.  Forward. 63-77. S.A. S. S. 207-213. 38(5)..A. and Barron.  Fuller. In Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.  Fishbein. (1975).
.  Gomez. (1997). L.. Task difficulty and risk in the determination of driver behaviour. A.T.  Gidron.D. (2008). (2003). 487-491. E.W. Amsterdam: Pergamon. and Syna Desevilya. 109-116. and Brown.C. Attitude towards online purchase of fish in urban Malaysia: an ethnic comparison. (1949).  Galovski. 13-21. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 109-128. Theories and models in traffic psychology – a contrary view.  Graham. (2006). R. 33(6). Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée. European Journal of Public Health. (1999). Petaling Jaya. (2006).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. R. Tracing the ethnic divide: race.A. J. T. and Hyder. and Carbonell Vaya. Journal of Applied Psychology.  Garg.  Grayson. A. 42(9). Ergonomics. (Eds. 167-202). Rajasingham-Senanayake. D. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. and Gomez. E. and Blanchard. C. D. A. Internal locus of control moderates the effects of road-hostility on recalled driving behavior. Use of auditory icons as emergency warnings: evaluation within a vehicle collision avoidance application. N. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 19. Nandy. 16(5). K. 540-546. Mutu. C. Stress and Coronary Disease. N. 6. McHugh. T. Malta. 252 .  Gidron.A. (1996).  Ghazali. Road Rage: Assessment and Treatment of the Angry. The prediction of accidents of taxicab drivers. and Davidson. E.E. MY: Sage. E. 93-96).B.. In Rothengatter.E.) Traffic & Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. Hillsdale. Journal of Behavioural Medicine.  Ghiselli. R. Y..S. Development and preliminary validation of a brief intervention for modifying CHD-predictive hostility components. Aggressive Driver. (1999).T. E. E. Gal. 1233-1248. rights and redistribution in Malaysia. and Mahbob. and Pender.S.. S.  Glass. H. Fuller.. 203-220. G. Behavior Paterns.B. Y. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 58(1). (2006). 12(4). Exploring the relationship between development and road traffic injuries: a case study from India. (1977). (Eds.
 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.
The influence of demographic factors on seatbelt use by adults injured in motor vehicle crashes.407-423. G. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Mahwah. (1973).J. 303-304. H. 479-490. Accident Analysis and Prevention.V. Activism and powerful others: distinctions within the concept of internalexternal control. 659-662. (Ed. 177-196. Additional dimensions of internal-external control. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.K. H. In Southeast Asian Affairs 2002: An Annual Review. and Stiller. British journal of Psychology. 262 . Moscati.B. Dutton. H. SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Implementation. and Nutter. A.  Lerner. 397-401. In Lefcourt. Applied Ergonomics. (2001). IV. (1989).A. E.M. Volume 2: Developments and Social Problems (pp.. (2002). Conner.  Levenson. 37.  Levenson... Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. and Morgan. Lawton. The locus of control as a moderator variable: stress.  LeShan.G. Billittier. C. Neerincx and Schreibers (2006). H.M.  Lefcourt.  Lenior. A comparison of reported levels and expression of anger in everyday and driving situations. 41. G. Jehle. Janssen.  Lefcourt. Cancer as a turning point. 253-269). K. 93. A. 3.. 2nd Edition. New York: E. (1976). 38. Malay dominance and opposition politics. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.) Research with the Locus of Control Construct.M.  Levenson. Barrett.C.P. 97. 377-383. Journal of Social Psychology. H. H.L. Human-factors engineering for smart transport: decision support for car drivers and train traffic controllers. D. (2002). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychiatry. pp. (2005). L. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. R. D. R. H. Journal of Personality Assessment. N. (1975). (1983).M.  Lee. New York: Academic.M. W..  Leech. (1974).
Huang. Psychological Reports. F. 7.. New York: Academic. 213-222. 8-9  Liverant. 59-67. Accident Analysis and Prevention.my/news/story. February 2). Role of primary personality factors in the perception of traffic signs and driver violations and accidents. In Rothe. H. 15-63).  Lonczak. (1960). Accident Analysis and Prevention. H-F.  Levy. A. H-D. Differentiating among internality. and Donovan. 11. (1981).) Research with the Locus of Control Construct. In Lefcourt. 125-127.A.limkitsiang.P. E. L-L.M.  Loo. Neighbors.S.com.. 10. (1980).htm. and Scodel. and Yen.  Lin. (1979). M-R. 36.  Lim. I. Media Statement released by the Office of the Malaysian Parliamentary Opposition Leader and Democratic Action Party Secretary-General..  Looi. (2007). R.P. D.com/archive/1999/feb99/sg1541. Internal and external control as determinants of decision making under conditions of risk. (2007.) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. Accident Analysis and Prevention. H. (2004). Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology. W. Levenson.  Lonero.M. (2002) Driver skill: performance and behaviour.asp?file=/2007/3/26/nation/17254652&sec=nation&focus=1.. Defensive driving a must under new curriculum. Accident-proneness: does it exist? Occupational Safety and Health. L. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Hwang. powerful others and chance. (Ed. D. The Star Online.  Lindsey. H. March 26). (1999. 2007 from http://thestar.S. K. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Retrieved April 5. (Ed. Edmonton AB: University of Alberta Press. Volume 1: Assessment Methods (pp. 536-545. The effect of crash experience on changes in risk taking among urban and rural young people. 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.. S. 263 . 39(3). J. (1997). 2007 from http://www. Retrieved May 14. Wu. C.
73-87. (Ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training (pp..L. C. (1998). In Dorn. Vissers. J. Psychological Bulletin.  Luckner. and Balla. A. G. G..  Matthews. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. C. 27(1).F.L. D.  Macdonald. and McDonald.  Marsh. Annual mileage. and Williams. Report No. Victoria NSW.  Martin. Altering locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor-adventure courses. L. J. Aldershot UK: Ashgate. Balla.W. (2000). 869-897. 55(2). Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. I.R. 62-67.A. P. 233-252). (1988). (1994. 391-411.M. behavior and cognition.  Massie. Quality & Quantity..  Marcoulides.M.. K. 129.K. R. J.L. M. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Basics of Structural Equation Modeling. Goodness-of-fit in CFA: the effects of sample size and model parsimony.W. and Jessurun.A. (1989). 264 . Driver information systems: a preliminary investigation of motorists information requirements in Kuala lUmpur.A. H. R. Watson.L.. Malaysia. (1986). A three-factor model of trait anger: dimensions. and Wan. Australia. 593-597. 31. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (1997). Journal of Rehabilitation. age. R. Young driver research program – a review of information on young driver performance characteristics and capabilities. driving violations and accident involvement in relation to drivers’ sex.28. 185-217.R. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. W. (1994). H. J. 18(4). Lourens. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A First Course.F. Journal of Personality. (2003).  Maakip.  Marsh. Accident Analysis & Prevention. S. D. A.  Maruyama. 103. and Hershberger. (1999). M.P. May). 68(5). and level of education. 299313. (1995).R.L. and Mooran. Campbell.M. Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. of affect.
and Costa. Retrieved April 5.E. P. Hampshire UK.. G. J. Psychological Medicine.W. (1986). Accident Analysis and Prevention.V. 2007 from http://www.P.E. 23. Unconscious suicides. Sambasivan. M. 173-181. D.  McRae. E. Perspectives Psychiatriques. November 6). (1990). Can we predict suicide and nonfatal self harm with the Beck Hopelessness Scale? A metanalysis. (2007).  Meichenbaum. Personality in Adulthood. New York: Guilford. R. (1989). Traffic accidents and convictions: group totals versus rate per kilometer driven. M. G. S.  McKenna.. Male and female drivers: how different are they? AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.  McMillan.P. New York: Plenum. Waylen. L.  McKenna. D. J. A. 71-77. Relationship between work-family conflict and the quality fo life: an investigation into the role of social support. (2009). 649-663. (1977). 769-778. 34(47).. and Burkes. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Beresford. Understanding Human Behavior. Fort Worth TX: Holt. The University of Reading. Malaysia records highest single-day death toll during holiday period. Duncan. I. I. Rinehar and Winston.D.. (1998).  Mercer.  Mendel.R. [ in press].malaysia-today. F. Ergonomics. S. (1974).net/Bloge/2005/11/malaysia-records-highest-single-day. Cognitive-Behavior Modification: An Integrative Approach. Malaysia Today.P. Gilbody. Accident proneness: a conceptual analysis. 29. and Neilly.. 9.  McKenna. Cognitive abilities and safety on the road: a re-examination of individual differences in dichotic listening and search for embedded figures. and Brown.htm  McConnell. F. (1983). Ismail. (2005. F. 45-52. Risk Analysis. 265 ..  Md-Sidin. 37(6). (1989).
Safety Science.L. 6(2). A re-examination of the accident proneness concept. microsleep episodes. and Keskinen.  Mizel. (2006).. what should we do? In Evans. A. A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know. (1949). Statistics. 21(4). P. Retrieved May 23. E. New York: Plenum. L.  Mintz. and Schwing. and Niemi. 2006 from http://www. 401406. Explanatory pitfalls and rule-based driver models. L. (1989). In Aggressive driving: three studies. V. 61(3). R. Aggressive driving.  Monárrez-Espino. E.) Human Behaviour and Traffic Safety. Washington DC. Finland. (2006). J. H. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 195-211. J. (1983. G. 266 .  Mintz. 33(3).org. Turku. A.my/en/street_smart_statistik.A. and Blum.org/pdf/agdr3study.  Mikkonen. l.aaafoundation.L.J. 341-353.C.E. Retrieved December 15.panducermat. Kayumov.pdf  Moller. C. (1985). 38(6). J. 2007.php.. Hasselberg. and subjective sleepiness: normative data using convergent methodologies to assess driver drowsiness. and Johnson. 335-342. D. Bulmas.) Proceedings of the Finnish-Soviet Symposium on Cognitive Processes. 44(2).  Miles. K. M. 147-161. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal predictors? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.. M. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 75-85.A.M. L. First year as a licensed car deriver: gender differences in crash experience. from http://www. Simulator performance. (Eds. In Helkama. Time intervals between accidents.  Ministry of Transport Malaysia (2007). Journal of Applied Psychology. J.. (1997). Journal of Applied Psychology. (Eds. (154).L. Michon. May). and Shapiro. Nhan. Cognitive theory of traffic behaviour. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2003). and Laflamme.  Michon.
(2003). Internality and externality as correlates of involvement in fatal driving accidents. (1976). A. 72..S.L.. (2001) Ethnicicity and suicidal behaviour in Malaysia: a review of the literature.  Neuman. Visual Cognition.T. Petaling Jaya. Fifth Edition.E.B. D. Journal of the Institute of Automobile Assessors. (1987).) Ethnic Futures: The State and Identity Politics in Asia (pp. Coping with the politics of faiths and cultures: between secular state and ecumenical traditions in India. (1956). Clinical problems of anger and its assessment and regulation through a stress coping skills approach. Feature-based attentional set as a cause of traffic accidents. Amsterdam: North Holland. Accident Analysis and Prevention. A. W. A. 164-174. 42. (1994). 320-388). and Gomez. Journal of Affective Disorders. R. and Summala H. Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents.  Novaco. and Krasner. and Maniam. In Pfaff-Czarnecaka. I. Journal of Applied Psychology. (2007). In O’Donoghue . 8. and Comrey. Hopelessness and suicidal behavior. Transcultural Psychiatry. 38(1). 267 .  Niméus. (Eds. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Nandy. 137-144. K.  Näätänen. T. (1974). J. A.L.  Mousser. A. P. R.  Moore.  Nandy. Boston: Pearson. 32-37. R. Accident proneness and road accidents. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making. 167-202). and Summala. (1999). (Eds.. 243-261. W. S. Defining ‘modern’ Malay womanhood and the coexistent messages of the veil. H. 339-343. R. and Astur. Träskman-Bendz and Alsén (1997). (2007). E. Montag. Religioin 37. 15(2).  Morris.  Näätänen. L.L. 6. 125-132.) Handbook of Psychological Skills Training: Clinical Techniques and Application (pp. 51-63. New York: Allyn & Bacon.  Most. MY: Sage. Rajasingham-Senanayake.
In Fuller. [Letter to the Editor] The Star. Driver suicides. and Santos. R. (2007. Ergonomics. February 8). P. (2001). N51. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 1016-1024. R. Safer Roads: A Guide to Road Safety Engineering.. The decade 1989-1998 in Spanish psychology: an analysis of development of professional psychology in Spain.S. 92-93.F (2001). 2(5). A.W. 4. K. J. A.  Ogden. B. Human Factors for Engineers (pp. and Lonnqvist. Aggression on roadways.. says operator.) Human Factors in Traffic Safety (pp.  Ochando. In Dewar. and Z.W. (1996. 4(2). Pentilla. (Eds. Oxford UK: North Holland. 201-215). Injury Prevention. Social psychological principles: ‘the group inside the person’. 468-472. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Odero. 40(10). 34. Aldershot. 43-76).  O’Neill.  Noy.L. In Baenninger.) Targets of Violence and Aggression: Advances in Psychology (pp. 171. I. December 9). and Olson.  Novaco.  Ohberg. E. R.  O’Connell. A.. (1997). Road traffic injuries in developing countries: a comprehensive review of epidemiological studies.  Our roads are filled with selfish drivers. R. M.  N-S highway still one of the safest roads. (1997). p. (Ed. Straits Times. P. Novaco. 237-252. UK: Ashgate. P. Human factors in modern traffic systems. Zwi (1997). 253-326). Garner. 654-656. (1996). F. R. J. W. (2002). AZ: Lawyers & Judges.W. Tropical Medicine and International Health. and Hermida. J. Driver perception-response time. British Journal of Psychiatry.L (2002). 268 . p.B. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. (2000).R. Risk homeostasis hypothesis: a rebuttal. 445-460. [Review of the book Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application]. Temes. Tucson. M. and Williams.38.  Olson. (1998).A.
37(1). C. and Grossman-Alexander. Hebl.S. H. Accident Analysis & Prevention.  Parker. (2001). (pp. Road safety: what has social psychology to offer? In Rothengatter.  Parker. 40.S.. and Schneider. Dimensions of driving behaviour and driver characteristics. driving skills and attitudes toward in-vehicle technologies (ISA & ACC). Traffic locus of control. Amsterdam: Elsevier.W. (1988). Anger and aggression among drivers in three European countries.. 113-140. Accident Analysis & Prevention..  Parsons. S.E. T.  Parker. J. Poster session presented at the 18th International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). 456-461.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Anger on and off the road. W. C. and Huguenin. B. (1995). driving violations and accident involvement. and Kaistinen. N.. 125-134).S.R and Stradling. M. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunisation. 38(5). Retrieved December 20. Tassinary. M.  Parkinson. 42. (2002). Locus of control in university students from eastern and western societies. T.  Özkan. (2004). 269 . Finland. T. 34.  Parsons. R. D. and Saleh.T. R. Ulrich.. D.  Papacostas. (Eds. 3-13.M. Özkan.ictct. O.G. Lajunen. and Lajunen (2005). T. Lajunen. 1036-1048. J. Ergonomics.R. D.org/workshops/05Helsinki/P1_Ozkan. J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Multidimensional Traffic Locus of Control Scale (T-LOC): factor structure and relationship to risky driving. L.A.. T. British Journal of Psychology. 533-545. Manstead. 2007 from www. (1998). Journal of Environmental Psychology. (2008). 38(3). (1974). Personality and Individual Difference. Applied Psychology: An International Review. 507-526. (2005). 229-235. Helsinki.pdf -  Pai. 18. 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. 92. and Summala. and Synodinos. Driving errors.G. R..D. 479-486. A. Reason.
A. and Renner. 147-154.  Peden. W.  Philip. 91. T. A.J.. D. (1986). Further evidence of associations of type A personality scores and driving-related attitudes and behaviors. D.  Pestonjee. Retrieved March 31. Journal of Sleep Research. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Road traffic injuries are a global public health problem [Letters]. U. D. Jarawan. Bioulac. and Mathers (Eds.  Per. Peden. Perceptual and Motor Skills. G.M. duration of driving and sleep deprivation in young versus old automobile drivers. 35.s  Pelz. (2005).B. Hyder. (2003). Scurfield. L. (1971). 8(1). 3. A. 619-623. A.J. P. B. Brazil. and Baldwin. Sleet. Simple reaction time. E. risk-taking and risk perception of accidents among South African taxi drivers. S.A. 68-79.. and Singh. (2002). D.  Peters. London: Taylor & Francis. British Medical Journal. 201-204. March 20-22.A. (1980). D. K.. Quera-Salva. B.. Type A behaviour pattern and motor vehicle drivers’ behaviour. Geneva. (1976). (1999). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop. Taillard... 324. J. Morristown NJ: General Learning. (2002).R.C. 63. A. (2000). E. 2007 from http:www. M..  Peltzer. G. Accident Analysis and Prevention. World report on road traffic injury prevention. 12(3).  Phares.  Perry.) (2004). Automotive Vehicle Safety. M. R. Are young drivers really more dangerous after controlling for exposure and experience? Journal of Safety Research. Locus of Control in Personality. 875-878. and Al Haji. 9-14 270 . Matto Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande. Neuroticism-extraversion as correlates of accident occurrence. M.ictct. and Peters. Superstition..and Schuman. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Mohan. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Road safety in southeast Asia: factors affecting motorcycle safety. and Åkerstedt. 1153. and Hyder.H.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Perry.R.
(1965). T.. E. and Anderle. Chalmers. Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? Ergonomics. S. Models of driving behavior: a review of their evoloution. L. 32(3). F. and Pant.D. S. 271 . 26. Journal of Applied Psychology..E. 673-678. S.-G. 29(1). Breen. Cambridge University Press.  Rautela. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Accident Analysis and Prevention. and Langley.S.J. J.H. Manstead.J. Disaster Prevention and Management. P.  Porter.J. S. Delineating road accident risk along mountain roads.. C. S. 3112).  Reeder. 369-374  Renner. 32(2). W. Accident Analysis and Prevention.S. 32.  Reason. A. T. (1994). (2005). internal-external locus of control and depression. Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlated of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations. and Campbell. 49(4).A. Updates of road safety status in Malaysia. Plous. J.  Radin Umar. (2000). (2007). J. 317-333. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.  Prociuk. reasons for riding and the social context of riding among young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. 20(4). R. 733-750. Psychology of drivers in traffic accidents. J. Ergonomics.. and Harris. (1996). S. (1990). (1993). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 16(3).J.  Preston. 334-343. R. 284-288. (1976). K.N. Stradling. Rider training. Traffic Engineering and Control. C.. 299-300. and Corlett. Human Error. (1991). New York: McGraw Hill.  Reason.I. 1315-1332. Baxter.  Ranney. (1989). D.  Proctor. Performance differences of individuals classified by questionnaire as accident prone or non-accident prone. and Lussier. 33. 566-573. Hopelessness. 78-80. (1990). Accident reduction through area-wide traffic schemes. IATSS Research / International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.
html  Robbins. P-A. 37(3).  Rimmö. and Solomon. Pacific Grove CA: Brooks/Cole. (2004). H. and Nickel. E. S. and Voas. (1999). 485-489.efpa.96/v5/statistik/statistik-2006. Singapore: Elsevier. Tippetts. Accident Analysis & Prevention. Stress and Health. In Rothengatter. Amsterdam: Elsevier. P. R. R. S. cities. Weinstein. 45(8).Y. and Downe. (Ed). (2000). Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company. and Huguenin.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application. Analysis of motor-vehicle crashes at stop signs in four U.G. Aggression and Violence: An Interdisciplinary Approach. and Voas. (2002). Report to the General Assembly. R. M.. 37(1). 453-460.be/doc/Final%20report%20TF%20Traffic%20Psychology%20GA%202003. (2005). (2000).L. Tippetts.pdf  Risser.A. (2007) Statistik2006.190. Proceedings of the joint conference of the Asia Pacific Conference on Human Computer Interaction and the Southeast Asian Ergonomics Society Conference. Ergonomics. 569-582. R.  Romano. 34(15). Human factors and motor vehicle crashes: a conceptual framework for ergonomic research in South East Asia. P. W-R. (2005b) Fatal red light crashes: the role of race and ethnicity. (2003. (2005a) Stop sign violations: the role of race and ethnicity on fatal crashes. Retrieved May 23. 272 .  Rice.  Romano. Aberrant driving behaviour: homogeneity of a four-factor structure in samples differing in age and gender. K. European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations Task Force on Traffic Psychology. (Eds. R. (2003). 2007 from http://www.  Road Transport Department Malaysia [Jabatan Pengagkutan Jalan Malaysia]. Theories of science in traffic psychology. 1-7. Retting.S..  Risser. S.P.  Richardson.64.R. April). Journal of Safety Research.B. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Anger. In Lim.G. Organizational Behavior.. A. 2007 from http://202.  Robbins. Retrieved December 11. Journal of Safety Research. R. S. E.D. T.
) Behavioural Research in Road Safety VIII. T.B. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. 249-258. and Bhopal.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. 428-435  Rothe. 10. (2002). The ethnic factor in state-labour relations: the case of Malaysia. Capital & Class. (2005). T. J. Psychological Monographs. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. (2005). American Psychologist. T.  Rotter.  Rothengatter. Drivers’ illusions – no more risk. G. Boston: Kluwer. 88.  Rothengatter. A. 84-115. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. The role of ethnicity in employee relations: the case of Malaysia. 43(1). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.  Rotter. (1990). Amsterdam: Elsevier. M. Traffic psychology and road safety: separate realities.B.  Rothengatter. Rosenbloom. (1975).  Rowley. J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 214-220). 45.B. 43(3). T.  Rothengatter.P. Traffic safety: content over packaging. (Ed. J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. and Bhopal.  Rotter. Edmonton CA: University of Alberta Press. (Ed.(Ed. An overview of traffic psychology: do research and measures match? In Grayson.P. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a case history of a variable. (1966). (2007). (Ed. P-E. topics and methods. In Rothe. 273 .) Driving Lessons: Exploring Systems that Make Traffic Safer. 595-600). (1998). 56-67.  Rowley. T. 3-12). C. In Barjonet.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. (2006). 489-493. and Shahar. J. C. J. G. 5. (2001) Objectives.B. whole issue. In Underwood. 308-331. Crowthorne UK: Transport Research Laboratory. 80. (pp. M. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers and attitudes towards traffic-violation penalties. (2002).
Thrills. Road Safety – Back to the Future. 29(1). The Star.). (1999). B. Human Factors for Engineers (pp.A. 2003 from http://www.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2003). (2006.  Salminen. and Santos (Eds.  Rude drivers lack emotional control. 2007 from http://www.  Sabey. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 373-376.gov. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. S.  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2001). Bukit Aman. Bukit Aman. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research. 23-42). Statistik Kemalangan Jalanraya & Kematian. IBU Pejabat Polis. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia]. Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2000). sports and home accidents. Malaysiatoday (Reuters).  Saad. Bukit Aman. (2005). [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2002). September 26). Retrieved December 11. p. IBU Pejabat Polis. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Retrieved May 22. 33-36. Relationships between injuries at work and leisure time. occupational. F. J. IBU Pejabat Polis. September 29). Accident Analysis and Prevention. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Kuala Lumpur. [Perankaan Kemalangang Jalanraya Malaysia].  Royal Malaysian Police [Polis Diraja Malaysia] (2007). Kuala Lumpur. Ergonomics of the driver’s interface with the road environment: the contribution of psychological research. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics.  Sadiq.  Salminen.malaysia-today.A2. Kuala Lumpur. M. Malaysian Road Accident Statistics. Kuala Lumpur. (2005. and Heiskanen. J. Correlations between traffic.my. spills & death plague Malaysian roads. (1997). 37(2).rmp. S. R.htm 274 . (2002). IBU Pejabat Polis.net/Blog-n/2006/09/thrillsspills-death-plague-malaysian. In Fuller. Bukit Aman.
Contemporary urbanization in Malaysia. (1981). Asian Survey. and sensation seeking.  Scuffham.. 6. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 179-188. L. (2000). A. Fosser..E. 6(9). (1997). and Langley (2002). and Schade. M. and Panter. Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity.C. Economic factors and traffic crashes in New Zealand. An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. 117-147). The effects of contextual interference on the acquisition and retention of logical rules. 673-687.F. Nagoya: Japan. 38. H. 29(3). P. P.  Sambasivan. B.A. 801-810. M.. Severson. K. 484-491.C. C. (Ed.  Schneider.  Schwebel. K. 3-16). 293302  Salih. November 15).. Traffic Engineering + Control. and Young. Personal correspondence.F.  Schlag. (2004).. and Rizzo. 275 . Public acceptability of traffic demand management in Europe. and Bourne.. and Panter. Singapore: Maruzen Asia for United Nations Centre fro Regional Development. In Honjo. Jr. Applied Economics. conscientiousness. 314-318.K.E. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. 41.  Sendut. I.L. (2003). C. K.T. Morf.A.. 34. Healy. (1995). A. A. Individual difference factors in risky driving: the roles of anger/hostility. C. Morf. (2008. V. D. L. In Healy. Urbanization and Regional Development (pp. Sagberg. Ericsson.F. Malaysia: urbanization in a multiethnic society – case of peninsula Malaysia. Ball. C. 35. M. and Bourne. and the social psychological road in between. S.). Jr. J.  Scuffham. (2006). Accident Analysis and Prevention. The research process: of big pictures.I.) The Sage Handbook of Methods in Psychology (pp. and Sætermo. (Eds. M. A model of traffic crashes in New Zealand. little details. In Sansone. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.  Sansone. A. F. Accident Analysis and Prevention.C.A. J. Regional Development Series.T. v. (1966).
P. Los Angeles CA: Western Psychological Services. Automobile accidents.M. 3-7.E.M and Kacmar. L. and Roskova. (1962). M.  Shinar.  Shook. 397-404. and Kanekar.  Siegel. Aggressive driving: the contribution of the drivers and the situation. The measurement and treatment of client anger in counselling. U. Hult. 119(3). (1956). (1998). Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. S. 1. K..L. H. J.  Sharma. (1988). Dewar. C. Hartwick. (2003).H. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 66. 51(1). American Journal of Psychiatry. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. The effects of safety regulations and law enforcement. Sekaran.) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. Journal of Counseling and Development. Manual for the Attitudes toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ). (2003). 180-205). Ketchen. 15(3). 276 . In Barjonet.L. Boston: Kluwer. Summala.  Siegriest.R. Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education. S.. and Payne.. 237-240. B. R. A. Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study. 46(15). An assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research.  Shinar. 1549-1565. suicide and unconscious motivation. Strategic Management Journal. M. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.T. 25. (1988). B.P. 361-365. Journal of Consumer Research. P-E. (2004). and Zakowska. J. D.S. The theory of reasoned action: a metaanalysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.J. D.  Selzer.E. (Ed. 325-343. (2001).. (2000). and Warshaw. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 137-160. (2007). New York: McGraw Hill.  Sheppard. Fourth Edition. G. E. Ergonomics.. D.  Shapiro. C.  Sharkin.
J. B. (1997).K.  Smiley. 49-68). (1998). (1992). S. Retrieved December 1. N.. Assessing hostile automatic thoughts: development and validation of the HAT scale. Fishchoff. M. Sinha. (2007). and Guest. 44. H.J. Houston. Reheiser...G. Philadelphia PA: Taylor & Francis. (Ed. 2007 from http://www.. 21(4). 14(4). 477-492. P. J. B.A. Issues in Science and Technology. Cognitive Therapy and Research.C. 50(8). P.C. Product design with people in mind. C.R. 386-397..sirc. American Psychologist. J. and Watson. Corrigan. Oxford UK. 1029-1030.D. (2004).D. Journal of Risk and Insurance.pdf  Spielberger. (2007).  Slovic. Measuring the experience. Matthews. 47(8).) Anger Disorders: Definition and Treatment (pp. 2007 from http://findarticles. 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. (1977). C.. Retrieved December 25. In Kassinove.A. N. Stress. Crowson. E. (2001. B. Kurylo.  Spielberger. C. 1-18). and Coombs. P. Lichtenstein. Winter). B. Jr. 277 . August). FL: Taylor & Francis.  Stanton. R. N. Preference for insuring against probably small losses: insurance implications. A. Traffic Engineering Design: Principles and Practice. B. (1995). (Ed.org/publik/driving. 1151-1158.. and Poirier. coping and psychological illness: a cross-cultural study. International Journal of Stress Management. M.K.. and Sydeman.  Slinn.). D.  Stanton. S. London: Arnold. Auto safety and human adaptation.  Social Issues Research Centre (2004. 237-258. and Frank. In Stanton. Boca Raton. expression and control of anger.A. Injury control: a promising field for psychologists. Ergonomics. Editorial. Human Factors in Consumer Products (pp.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200001/ai_n8903050/pg_1  Snyder.
 Stewart. (Eds. 1359-1370. J.. Methodological and technical challenges in regional evaluation of ITS: Induced and direct effects. T.L. M. T.) Handbook of Emotions (pp. Novaco. M. 529-544. The Methodology of Theory Building.. 44(3). R. R. 63. J. (1978). (1993)... Traffic Injury Prevention. (2005). and stress. Medical Journal of Malaysia.  Stevenson. and Havland.. and Ryan. 247-254. Traffic congestion. N. and Liwag. 467-480. A. (1988).  Subramaniam. Behavioral factors as predictors of motor vehicle crashes in young drivers. Sümer.  Sümer. D. Harlow UK: Addison-Wesley.M. Journal of Psychology.  Storey. 279-300).. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personality attributes as predictors of psychological well-being for NCOs. (2005). 139(6). 681-688. (Ed. (2000).  Stough.E.R. 37(4). Morrison.  Stein. Cheltenham. N. In Lewis. R. N. Trabasso. and Jin. D. M. UK: Edward Elgar. Attributions of responsibility for motor vehicle crashes. D.C. Maggio. Palamara. Safety-Critical Computer Systems. New York: Guilford. G. The representation and organization of emotion experience: unfolding the emotion episode. Sydney AU: Educology Research Associates. and Erol.  Sümer.) Intelligent Transportation Systems. N. Stokols. Ergonomics.E. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual mediated model.. N.W. (1996). 43(9).  Stokols. 178-182. 278 . (2003). M.A. Type A Behavior.. N. J. P. and Campbell.R. (2001). E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2(4). 35. R. (1989) Prevention and control of injuries arising from road traffic accidents in Malaysia. M. R.  Steiner. In Stough. Behavioural compensation by drivers of a simulator when using a vision enhancement system. (2001). and Pinto. 949-964.A. Journal of Applied Psychology. Stanton. Bilgic. H.
(2005). Sümer.K. G. Asymmetric relationship between driving and safety skills. Özkan. (2006). 703-711. (1996).N. Traffic psychology theories: towards understanding driving behaviour and safety efforts. and Näätänen. (1994). Berument. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. S. In Underwood. 31.. 22(1-3). S. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Summala. (Ed. (2005). G. Mahasakpan. H. Journal of Traumatic Stress. In In Rothengatter. 41-52). H. University of Helsinki Traffic Research Unit. 103-117. H. and Tantriratna. and Carbonell Vaya E. Amsterdam: Elsevier. A. coping selfefficacy and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Personal resources. 193-199. H. and de Bruin. H.. vehicles. and Merisalo. 38...  Summala. In Rothengatter.  Summala. T. (1980). N. and Lajunen. 331-342. Risk control is not risk adjustment: the zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. T. Karanci. (Eds. Epidemiologic characteristics of drivers..) Road User Behaviour: Theory and Research (pp. (Report 11). H. P. A psychophysical method for determining the effects of studded tires on safety. R. and Punto. 18(4). pedestrians and road environments involved in 279 . T.  Swaddiwudhipong. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. P. and Gunes. Nguntra.  Summala. R. The zero-risk theory and overtaking decision.  Summala. 38(3). Hierarchical model of behavioural adaptation and traffic accidents. (1988). H. 82-92). (1986). Ergonomics. M. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Koonchote. Helsinki.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. 383-394). N. (1988). (1997). A. Accident risk and driver behaviour. (1996). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. 491-506. Accident Analysis and Prevention. T. H. T.  Sümer..  Summala. H. Nieminen.  Summala.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp.. Human Factors. W. Safety Science. (Eds. 21. 442-451.  Summala.
25(1). (2001). 42. (1969). J. (1989). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.  Tavris. T. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. J. E. Sakamoto.M. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (2000). (eds.road traffic injuries in rural Thailand. Hopelessness in a community population: factorial structure and psychosocial correlates.  Tanaka. (2001). 33(2). Kuhn. and Fragopanagos (2005). G. Hopelessness in a community population in Japan.  Tavris.R. 18(4). and Papacostas. B. and Theodorson.  Taylor.. Fujihara.. S. E. 241-263). (Ed.S. (1985).. Sakamoto..) Reading and Understanding More Multivariate Statistics. E.233-239. The interaction of attention and emotion. 34. C. Ono. (1985). S.J. and Kitamura.R..  Synodinos.M. Driving habits and behaviour patterns of university students. International Review of Applied Psychology. and Kitamura. and Layde. and Yarnold.. 37-44. G. 581-590. A Modern Dictionary of Sociology. Ten commandments of structural equation modeling.  Tanaka.C. Journal of Social Psychology. 609-615.  Tanaka. Y. A. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. In Barjonet. P-E. L. New York: Thomas & Cromwell. Fujihara. A fit-index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. Neural Networks. S. 138(5). C. Y. The effects of road design on driving. 241-257.  Theeuwes. N. T.. (1996). J. D.A. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistics. 52(6).) Traffic Psychology Today (pp. P. (1998).  Theodorson. Boston: Kluwer. P. G.G. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. 353-369.E. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 280 . S. 167-172.S. In Grimm. New York: Simon & Schuster. Ono.  Thompson. and Huba.
Enns. Volume 3: Attention. P. Anger while driving. and Kahneman. D.  Tversky. and Vavrik. L. 321-333. 1124-1130. (1993). W.F. 147-152. Wright and Crundall. 279-297. Thurman. American Journal of Psychiatry. and response to a traffic safety campaign. (1949). 32(3). accident involvement. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. G. D. (1974).  Tiliman. (Eds. 5(5). 281 . C. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science. (1973). Automatic and controlled information processing: the role of attention in the processing of novelty. Personality predictors of driving accidents. J.  Turner. 4(4). Paying attention behind the wheel: a framework for studying the role of attention in driving. Collusion after a collision: witnesses’ reports of a road accident with and without discussion. Personality and Individual Differences. Relationship to risk-taking preferences. Applied Cognitive Psychology.  Ulleberg. G. J. J. (1997).  Underwood.. H. 23(1). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.) Handbook of Perception and Action. (2004). O. Cognitive Psychology. and Kirkcaldy. (2003). 7. (1996). and Sanders. Mills. A. 445-448. 207-332. and McClure. 11-22. and Milton. R. G. B.. 185. P. In Neumann. Age and gender differences in risk-taking behaviour as an explanation for high incidence of motor vehicle crashes as a driver in young males. (2001).E. and Everatt. London: Academic. 55-68. Judgment under uncertainty. A.  Underwood. C. 106(5). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Chapman..M. The accident prone automobile driver.  Trick. Personality subtypes of young drivers.W. 5. 123-130. Science. Effectivenss of cognitive-behavioral treatments in reducing Type A behavior among university faculty – one year later.  Underwood. J. (1999). A. R. G. 2. Journal of Counseling Psychology.A and Hobbs. D. (1985).  Trimpop. 385-424. and Kahneman.T. Injury Control and Safety Promotion.  Tversky. 10(3)..
Matto Grosso do Sul. (2001).  Vaa. 39. 181-190). Caserta. Campo Grande.  Vavrik. (2007). S. (1999). Retrieved December 5. 336-345. 210-222. “Accident prone. A. 43(2). In Rothengatter. Ergonomics. 2007 from http:www. Brazil. 913-921. (2005).org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Vassallo. T. 9(2). Cockfield. 444-458. É. Harris.M. 282 ..A. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Van der Hulst. Italy. (2004).. 24-29. Harrison. Amsterdam: Elsevier. G. J.  Velting. Meijman.” Recovery. Ergonomics.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application.A.F. (Ed. T. (2000). J.ictct. Personality and negative expectancies: trait structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Cognition and emotion in driver behaviour models: some critical viewpoints. J. Effects of road situation and age on secondary task measures. M.J.D.B. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Personality and Individual Differences. D.ictct. Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra Workshop.. Bergerson. Retrieved September 1. and Huguenin. Risky driving among young Australian drivers: trends precursors and correlates.) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Driver selection and improvement in Germany..  Verwey. (1998).D. and McIntyre.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Vaa. Smart. S. and Rothengatter. Traffic accident risks in developing countries: superseding biased approaches. E.  Vasconcellos. D.F.. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving. A. In Underwood. The role of attributions and anger in aggressive driving behaviours.. R.. W. 26.pdf  Vallières. 2007 from www. 42. March 20-22. (Eds. Utzelmann. and Vallerand. Proceedings of the 14th workshop of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT). (1999). W. (2005). Sanson. H. R. T. A. On-line driver workload estimation.
Transportation and society. Raghunathan..html. P. G. 438-447. F. Perceived coping as a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: a structural equation modeling approach.  Waylen.S. Elliot. eye blinks and ongoing driver behaviour.M.  Wállen Warner. 33. P.com/public_affairs/reports/AA-foundation-FDN33-cradle-grave. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Amsterdam: Elsevier. (2001).F.F.  Waterman. and Little. N.E.. 2007 from http://www. Stanton. In Proceedings of the 1998 Road Safety Research. J. In Rothengatter. D. Changes in young adults offense and crash patterns over time. L. Cradle Attitudes – Grave Consequences. and Åberg. and Young. Methodological problems associated with surveying unlicensed drivers. (2009.. 123-142.B.pdf  Wei.T.. Personality and Individual Differences. Backwoods Home Magazine. Retrieved November 2.com/articles/waterman37. (2000). (2001). Accident Analysis and Prevention. 117128. Verwey.A. Journal of Counseling Psychology. W. January 21). Here’s the story of Burma-Shave. 1-8).R.  Walker. M.  Watson. and Zaidel. M. and Carbonell Vaya E. B. and McKenna. (2006). 2008 from http://www.  Waller. The development of gender differences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use (Summary Report).J. H. Predicting drowsiness accidents from personal attributes. 283 . (Eds. A. M. Basingstoke UK: AA Foundation for Road Safety. (1998). T.) Traffic and Transport Psychology: Theory and Application (pp. P. An on-road investigation of vehicle feedback and its role in driver cognition: implications for cognitive ergonomics. (1997). Policing and Educatino Conference 2. 427-433.P.theaa. Retrieved December 15.P. Drivers’ decision to speed: a study inspired by the theory of planned behavior. T. 28.H. and Mallinckrodt (2003). International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics.  Waller. 50(4). Shope.backwoodshome. 9. New Zealand. A. R.A. Wellington. (2002). Heppner. 421-444. Feeling nostalgic? Now you’ll rave.. 5(4).
450-455.  Wells. Fox. Guiling. 195.  Wheatley.  Wilde.J. M. Type-A behaviour pattern and decision-making style as predictors of self-reported driving style and traffic accident risk. An exploratory study of the relationship between road rage and crash experience in a representative sample of US drivers. G. Toronto: PDE Publications.  Wheatley. Ergonomics.. 1116-1121. Mild social deviance.J.J. University of Waterloo Press. Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal. 441-468. (1988). 2. Weissman. (2002). Proceedings of the International Cooperation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic Safety (ICTCT) Extra 284 . 469-529) New York: McGraw Hill. K..M. On the choice of denominator for the calculation of accident rates. 15(11/12).S.. Hostility and depression associated with suicide attempts. Hallberg.J. American Journal of Psychiatry. (1961). M. (2002). 8.  Wilde. P. R. D. G. Childhood accidents.L. Preventions of accidents in childhood. In Halsey. J. G.J. 130(4). 209-225. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. 31.W. S. 34.  West.S. and Klerman. J. (Ed. G. Target Risk. 84..J. deductions and discussion of recent commentaries. Ceminsky.M (1956). Snow.. G. Advances in Paediatrics. G.) Transport Risk Assessment (pp. and Anderson. (2005).S.S. (1973). (1982)..  Wilde. and French. G. 207-219. G. 271278.. 135-154). R. British Journal of Psychology.). (pp. Elander. In Yager.S. 1149-1152. (1984). M. (1994).  Wilde. G. Risk Analysis. Wiliams. (1993). Accident Prevention. (ed. 324.  Wilde.N. Dunaway.S. B.  Wilde. (2007). G. S. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic education requirements. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Risk homeostasis and traffic accidents: propositions. Deaths and injuries from car accidents: an intractable problem? Journal of Cleaner Production. E.  Wells-Parker.
34(5). J.  Woodcock. S. 26(6). The fluid state: Malaysia’s national expressway... (1994).S. J.  Williams. and Shabanova.E.Workshop. Matto Grosso do Sul. International Social Science Journal. (1999). March 20-22. Welsh.  Wood.. 55(175). Lenard. Driver experience with antilock brake systems. (2001). Campo Grande. Cascardi. Journal of Safety Research. and Boyd. A. Flyte and Garner. (2003). for motor-vehicle crash deaths. M. A. D.G. 807-811. New York: Taylor & Francis. E. Applied Ergonomics. 398-403. Countries and Their Cultures. Research Methodology in Strategy and Management..C. T. The factor structure and convergent validity of the Aggression Questionnaire in an offender population. (2008).  Williamson. T. 303346.Y. Designing for the in-car safety and security of women. 6(2).R. Accident Analysis and Prevention.) Contemporary Ergonomics.J. M. Mastering the World of Psychology. Responsibility of drivers.  Williamson.ictct. 110-131.org/workshops/05-CampoGrande  Willford. J. 99-109. Structural equation modeling in strategy research: applications and issues.F. (2004). 8. 557-567. J. by age and gender.  Williams. Retrieved March 31. M. Wood. T. Farmington Hills MI: Gale. N. 1.  Williams.K. and Hartman. A. (1996). 527-531. Brazil. Boston: Pearson. and Poythress. Gavin.. (2003). Possession and displacement in Kuala Lumpur’s ethnic landscape. In Hanson.A. 2007 from http:www.F. and Well. (2003). Space and Culture. N. 285 .  Williams. (2000). Boyd.I.B. L. Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice.G. V. (Ed. Psychological Assessment. A. 31.  Wilson. S..
theatre and tourism. In Underwood. 1314-1330. (2000). 42(5). Ergonomics. Geneva. Country reports. Amsterdam: Elsevier  Young.C. 50(1). 43(9). S. (2005). 740-746. 286 .) Traffic and Transport Psychology (pp. Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles.A. (Ed.  Zikovitz. D. and Stanton.  World Health Organization [WHO] (2004). M.  Yergil. 487-503).S. and Harris. . A three-dimensional dynamic posture prediction model for simulating in-vehicle seated reaching movements: development and validation. and Chaffin. 473-485. D. Technical Report Series No. Negotiating identity in Malaysia: multi-cultural society.R. N. 46-58. Report of an Advisory Group. (2007). 33(3). Ergonomics. G. (2005). Islam. D. Accidents in Childhood: Facts as a Basis for Prevention. 118. Ergonomics. Regional Office for the Western Pacific. L.  Zhang.  Yaapar. Head tilt during driving. (1999). Asian Journal of Social Science. Drivers and traffic laws: a review of psychological theories and empirical research. X. World Health Organization [WHO] (1957).
(see also. ABS ensures that. 1939) and arising from the individual differences approach in psychology. a concept generally attributed to Farmer and Chambers (1926. Anti-lock braking systems (ABS): in-vehicle technology that modulates the pressure in each wheel’s brake line so that when a whell lock-up is anticipated or occurs. traction is maintained steering and braking actions continue to be effective. the ABS reapplies it until the wheels begin to lock-up again. the brake line pressure is relates. drivers stop sooner and in a more controlled manner than with traditional rack-and-pinion braking systems. or benefits. differential accident involvement). presumably because of personality factors. Immediately after releasing the pressure. As a result. to the individual” (Brown & 287 .GLOSSARY Acronyms and Symbols: ABS AQ BA BHS BIT C DDB FARS HAT I ITS IFRB Anti-lock braking system LoC Aggression Questionnaire MVA Behavioural adaptation P Beck Hopelessness Scale PBC Behaviour-in-Traffic RHT Chance SEM Dangerous driving behaviour SRS Fatality Analysis Reporting System TAPB Hostile automatic thoughts TCI Internality TPB Intelligent transportation system TRA Industrial Fatigue Research Board Theory of Reasoned Action Theory of Planned Behaviour Task capability theory Type A Behaviour Pattern Supplementary restraint system Structural equation modelling Risk Homeostasis Theory Perceived behavioural control Powerful others Motor vehicle accident Locus of control Definitions: Accident-proneness: a tendency toward accidents. the outcome of which is typically reflected by perceived advantages. on most surface types. allowing the wheel to turn. Because the wheels continue to turn during the braking manoeuvre. Behavioural adaptation (BA): “the ability to adapt to novel conditions based on one’s experiences.
In the present research. characteristics of road users. when confronted by differing levels of perceived or objective risk in the environment. black event) Contextual mediated model: an empirically-based path analysis.Noy. task capability theory) . where effort to save lives may be concentrated. it refers to a combination of circumstances. the statistical model was based on the results of automobile users’ responses to psychological testing and questionnaires. The contextual mediated model forms the basis of ordering variables within the research design for studies reported in this thesis. time of week and. Also referred to as risk compensation. proximal variable. that corresponds to an accumulation of crashes in the statistical mass. black spot) Black spot: a term attributed to Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. it is essential when searching for black spots to disaggregate the accident mass by splitting it into progressively smaller units by type. accident proneness) Differential psychology: see individual differences approach. McKenna of the University of Reading. (see also. distal variable. driving and psychological variables influence self-reported behaviour in traffic and self-reported crash outcomes. The model posits certain variables as distal to the crash event and predicts that their influence will moderate drivers’ self-reported tendencies to behave in certain ways when in traffic situations. 25). It differs from accident proneness in that it (a) denotes an area of study. crash outcome) Differential accident involvement: a concept proposed by Frank P. The central idea is that. hierarchical driver adaptation theory. p. (see also. where possible. It refers to accumulations of motor vehicle crashes in amassed statistics. The concept has been applied both to Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory and to Fuller’s (2000) task capability theory. including driver behaviour. (see also. as an alternative to the largely discounted notion of accident proneness. rather than a theory. road and traffic conditions. risk homeostasis theory. drivers will alter their behaviour (see also. Usually based on geographical location of the crash. Black event: a post-hoc extension of the black spot concept. therefore allowing for the influence of external factors. (see also. Turke showing the manner in which the certain demographic. and (c) assumes that individuals may vary along a continuum with regard to factors that affect their risk of crash. (b) does not prejudge the causation of personality variables. first offered by Nebi Sümer of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara. 2004. BA is a core concept in all risk theories of driver behaviour. 288 .
ability. Rotter of the University of Connecticut. motivation.. in-crash. intelligence. aptitudes. who posited three dimensions: Internality (I). Each of the nine elements of the matrix represents a possible focus for road safety. Externality Chance (C) and Externality Powerful Others (P). William Haddon Jr. demographic and motivational variables – contribute to diving outcomes. (see also. The name was changed to the British Industrial Health Research Board in 1931. Locus of control (LoC): a concept generally credited to Julian B. Individual differences research typically focuses on the domains of personality. 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. it refers to the degree to which individuals attribute the cause of their behaviour to environmental factors (external LoC) or to their own decisions and actions (internal LoC). Department of Transportation.Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): is a database in the public domain maintained by the U. not as a unidimensional. (see also. and after crash – to form a matrix with nine cells. personality) Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB): a body set up in Great Britain during World War One to investigate the cause and prevention of industrial accidents. 289 . accident proneness) Inner speech: see self-talk. bipolar construct ranging from I (internal) to E (external) maximums. which combines the three components of the road traffic system – the human. 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. selfefficacy and self-esteem. but rather as a multidimensional variable made up of three or more dimensions. a body of theoretical and empirical knowledge has been generated from attempts to consider how individual differences – primarily in personality. self-concept. then of the Veteran’s Administration Medical Centre in San Francisco. the vehicle and the road – with the three phases in a motor vehicle crash – pre-crash. It was at the IFRB that statisticians and analysts first examined the distribution of accident frequency. Individual differences approach: also referred to as differential psychology. values. Later conceptualisations have viewed LoC. In traffic psychology. Haddon matrix: a model developed by the American traffic analyst. One such multidimensional model of LoC was advanced by Hanna Levenson. Headway: the distance between two vehicles travelling one in front of the other.S. interests.
For the purposes of the present research. When there is a discrepancy between the level of perceived risk in the environment and an internalised “target risk” level. Private speech: see self-talk. Professor Emeritus at Canada’s Queen’s University. motor vehicle crash was considered largely synonymous with the concept of motor vehicle accident. PBC refers to the degree of control that individuals believe they have over a given behaviour.Motor vehicle: a machine which incorporates an engine and wheels and is used for transportation on land. 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”. Risk homeostasis theory (RHT): Originally postulated by Gerald J. operates to keep user risk at an essentially constant level. Adlerian psychology views it as “the individual’s style of life. individuals will engage in behaviour intended to eliminate the discrepancy. most usually on roads. mobile construction equipment or platforms. occurring on a public road and involving at least one moving motor vehicle. Personality: is the integration of traits that can be investigated and described in order to render an account of the unique quality of the individual. Perceived behavioural control (PBC): a key concept in Azjen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour. somewhat analogous to a thermostat. 1985. 333-334).S. if perceived risk falls below the target risk. the ego and the superego. Freudian psychology considers it to be a manifestation of the integration of the id. the individual differences approach. Included in this term are walking. but excluded those vehicles which operate on rails. individuals are likely to perform riskier behaviour. trucks (lorries). including life goals” (Chaplin. p. the RHT posits that an underlying feedback system. or characteristic manner of responding to life’s problems. as expressed by Raymond Cattell. motor vehicles included automobiles. motorised bicycles. For the purposes of the present research. Risk compensation: see behavioural adaptation. and buses. and using animal-drawn or human-drawn carts or other devices. motorcycles. bicycling. Wilde. individuals will engage in more cautious behaviour. regards it as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in a given situation. conversely. That is. Wilde’s theory has generated equivocal 290 . Motor vehicle crash: a collision or incident that may or may not lead to injury. if perceived risk exceeds target risk. Non-motorised transport: any transport that does not require a motor to generate energy.
parking spaces. draining system. based on analysis of road and traffic related accident information. Road traffic injuries: fatal or non-fatal injuries incurred as a result of a motor vehicle crash. 35). as the result of injury sustained in the crash. at both conscious and unconscious levels. but only 291 . 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. Also referred to as private speech or inner speech. behavioural adaptation.and snow-covered roads during the winter months. which applies engineering principles in order to identify road design or traffic management improvements that will cost-effectively reduce the cost of road accidents. Within the context of this research. bridges. tunnels. most frequently attributed to Donald Meichenbaum at Canada’s University of Waterloo.research results and some heated controversy within the field of traffic psychology. including the network. (c) improvement of safety aspects of existing roads to avoid future problems. They enable better traction and shorter braking distances than non-studded counterparts. target risk. p. 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. (see also. Self talk: a fundamental concept in most theories of cognitive behaviourism. zero risk theory) Road infrastructure: road facilities and equipment. archways and footpaths. Road safety engineering: “a process. Opportunities for road safety engineering in general apply at four levels: (a) safety conscious planning of new road networks. 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. stopping places. Road traffic fatality: a death occurring within 30 days of a motor vehicle crash. these tyres are manufactured with small metal studs – much like football cleats – inserted in the treads. signage. A motor vehicle crash may be considered as a failure in the system. Cognitive self-statements may be either negative or positive. It refers to the constant stream of chatter that goes on in one’s mind. (b) incorporation of safety features in the design of new roads. Studded tyres: used primarily in countries that experience ice. and (d) improvement of known hazardous locations on the road network. overpasses. 1996.
According to RHT proponents. behaviour control) (see also. theory of planned behavriour) 292 . On dry roads. (3) the benefits expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. and Icek Ajzen at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. risk homeostasis theory) Task cube. According to Wilde (1994). (see also. target risk is determined by four “classes of utility factors”: (1) the benefits expected from risky behaviour alternatives. A complex 3 X 5 X i matrix. instrument panel and windshield of a motorcar. The TPB has been applied to a wide range of research problems in traffic psychology. (2) the costs expected from cautious behaviour alternatives. it is a level of risk that each individual is willing to accept. (see also. Each cell of the matrix represents a combination of the three dimensions which form the basis of the theory. (see also. Intentions are influenced by: (a) attitudes (the positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour). and (4) the costs expected from risky behaviour alternatives. studded tyres actually increase braking distances and decrease lateral control of the vehicle. Target risk: a core concept in Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. hierarchical adaptation theory) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): as proposed by Icek Ajzen of the University of MassachusettsAmherst. where i represents the number of factors defining the functional taxonomy dimension. derived from Summala’s (1996) hierarchical adaptation theory of driver behaviour. These are energy absorbing buffers designed to protect drivers from injury during collision by preventing the head and upper body from striking the steering wheel. and (c) perceived behavioural control (PBC) over the performance of the behaviour (which jointly influences both the intention and behavioural performance). which are the best predictors of behaviour. The TRA has been used as the basis for some driving safety research but is perhaps more significant as a conceptual stepping-stone to the now widely used theory of planned behaviour. 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. Individuals will undertake behaviour to ensure that the level of risk in which they are engaged. theory of reasoned action.when manoeuvring on icy or hard-packed snowy surfaces. the TPB posits that a given behaviour is determined by individuals’ intentions. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) proposes that behaviour is a function of intentions. which in turn are a function of attitudes and subjective norms. (b) subjective norms (opinions about what significant others would think of the behaviour). remains constant at the target level. Supplementary restraint system (SRS): Also referred to as “airbags”.
convenience and economy. risk homeostasis theory) 293 . adapting behaviourally to driving conditions. from its outset. behavioural adaptation. It is primarily concerned with the study of the behaviour of road users and the psychological processes underlying that behaviour. Transportation factors: a set of five domains operating on the process of moving goods or persons from one place to another. It is often proposed as an alternative to Wilde’s risk homeostasis theory. motorised and non-motorised. ergonomics. that share the same road infrastructure. only when a subjective threshold is exceeded and “feelings of fear” are experienced. comfort. Zero risk theory: as proposed by Heikki Summala of the Traffic Research Unit at the University of Helsinki. time. road engineering. Traffic mix: the form and structure of different modes of transport. The five basic transportation factors include: safety. controlling and organising traffic to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of the existing road infrastructure capacity. community planning. coordinating.Traffic management: planning. has embraced a multidisciplinary approach and a shared focus with human physiology. The emergence and impact of the field of traffic psychology is discussed in chapter 2 of this thesis. it posits that drivers attempt to maintain a stable balance between subjective and objective risk. Traffic psychology: a relatively new and developing field of applied psychology that. management science and economics. the term is considered synonymous with transport psychology and with mobility psychology. (see also. In the present research.
Appendix A: List of Published and Research Scales 294 .
Research scales (BIT and HAT) were obtained and used with the permission of the authors. Published scales (AQ and BHS) are marketed only to professional psychologists capable of meeting criteria for psychometric knowledge and expertise. 1993). Papacostas & Synodinos. Beck & Steer. 19500 Bulverde Road. Available from: Western Psychological Services 12031 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles. 2000).com/portal/page?_pageid=53. C. Information for obtaining copies of these instruments is provided below: Aggression Questionnaire (AQ. San Antonio.edu/~csp/csp. 1988) Obtained with permission from the authors: c/o Dr. Hawaii 96822 USA http://www.hawaii. Available from: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt.eng.com/cgibin/MsmGo. Buss & Warren.S.A number of variables studied in the present research were measured using scales copyrighted by corporate publishers or by universities where they were developed.70400&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS. TX 78259 USA http://pearsonassess. CA 90025 USA http://portal. Brace & Company).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. with the understanding that they would not be re-published.wpspublish.html 295 . Papacostas Department of Civil Engineering 2540 Dole Street University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu.
Kurylo & Poirier) Obtained with permission from the late Dr. Snyder. 296 .ukans.edu/hope.R. Crowson.psych. Houston. 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. C.Hostile Automatic Thoughts Scale (HAT. Snyder.
Appendix B: Personal Information Form (PIF) 297 .
please answer the following questions: 2. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 5. In what city/town have you lived most of your life? _______________. We are not asking for your name.. 1. _________.g. 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? _______________.CONFIDENTIAL Personal Information Form Please answer the following questions about Please answer the following questions about YOURSELF.. 250 cc) ______________ ___ other (please specify: _________________) 7. __________ (city/town) (state) (country) 4. Proton Wira) _______________ ___ motorcycle – what engine size (e. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ walk ___ other (please specify: _______________) 6.what manufacturer & model (e.g. What type of motor vehicle do you most often drive? (please check only one) ___ car -. For how long have you had your driver’s licence? __________ years and ___________months (number) (number) 3. Do you presently have a driver’s licence? (circle one) yes no If yes. _________. what kind of transportation do you use? (please check only one) ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. Most of the time when you travel. so please answer all questions as truthfully as you can.
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. all the time ___ yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a motorcycle? (please check only one) ___ yes. When you want to use a motorcycle. Within the last twelve (12) months. most of the time ___ no 11.8. 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. When you want to use a car. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. 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 . all the time ___ yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. do you have ready ACCESS to a car? (please check only one) ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes. some of the time ___ yes.
What is your age? ___ male _____ years ___ female 17. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in damage over RM100 to your vehicle. Within the last twelve months. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. have you been in a motor vehicle accident that required you to go to a medical clinic for minor injuries? yes no If yes. What is your ethnic background? (please specify only one:) ___ Malay ___ Indian-Malaysian ___ Chinese-Malaysian ___ other (please specify: _____________) THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION 300 . what 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:__________________________________________ ) 13.12. Within the last twelve months. but no injuries? If yes. sitting behind driver) ___ car (passenger) ___ bicycle (non-motorized) ___ I was walking ___ other (please specify: _______________) If yes. What is your gender? 16. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion. what phrase best describes what happened? (please check only one): ___ my vehicle was changing lanes and hit (or was hit by) another vehicle ___ my vehicle hit (or was hit by) another vehicle that was changing lanes ___ my vehicle went out of control and went off the side of the road ___ my vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection (junction) ___ the other vehicle went through a red light (or sign) at an intersection ___ my vehicle hit another vehicle from behind ___ my vehicle was hit from behind by another vehicle ___ other (please specify:__________________________________________ ) 15. in what kind of vehicle were you travelling when the accident occurred? ___ bus ___ motorcycle (driver) ___ car (driver) ___motorcycle (pillion.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.